Re: Sounding board for Debian forums?
Hi All,
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
> >> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts
> >> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion
> >> evolves?
> >
> > Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of
> > real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you
> > described?
Yes, there are examples. Typically, they use forums that allow for
moderation after-the-fact. There are even groups on Reddit that are
quite civi (r/legaladvice is an example)l. All it takes is a devoted
moderator and the ability to hide or remove posts that break the rules
of the forum.
> > Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the
> > kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need
> > to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater
> > formal or technical barriers.
Although that may be true in general, the average Debian user tends to
be a lot more technical than the average human being. I also submit
that the current forum comes with some pretty serious barriers (the
worst of which is that supportive comments are generally avoided to
reduce noise, which increases the perceived negativity of the forum
and also leads to strong disagreements and/or a feeling of posting
into a vacuum).
> > So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that
> > tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement
> > in those real-world cases?
I don't think a lack of a real-world example is a reason not to try
something. I don't think Debian would exist if that were a
requirement at the project's inception.
> I'm not sure this addresses your concern directly, as I've no idea if it
> has specifically been used by whatever you define as a "dispersed
> community", but Minister Audrey Tang mentioned in her talk at DC18 that
> they had used an interesting approach to sorting out the Uber vs. Taxi
> vs. users situation in Taiwan, which you can see from something like the
> 13th minute onwards, here:
>
> https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/
>
> She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute, which is
> pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with the Free version
> being here:
>
> https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer
>
> (Note the existence of a contributor agreement)
>
> The thing that impressed me about this (as described in the video) is
> the way that it seems to amplify the constructive aspects of the
> conversation.
>
> I can of course think of problems with using such a thing in Debian, the
> main one being that unlike with government, one cannot just issue orders
> to our volunteers, so it is entirely possible that everyone _not_ doing
> some job in Debian are agreed on how it should be done, but not willing
> to do it, while the people actually doing the job have another idea.
I think the main value would be finding the common ground when
disagreements arise, not making binding decisions.
> However, if one is trying to reach a wide consensus, and the people
> involved are willing to engage with such a system in order to try to
> find out what people think, and interested to do whatever looks like the
> consensus, and assuming we can ensure that we don't get invaded by
> trolls, but equally are able to get non-debian people with legitimate
> interests in whatever question to join in, it might be worth a look.
>
> Cheers, Phil.
> --
> |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
> |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
> |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Thanks Phil, that is the kind of thing I was looking for.
I have also seen kialo[1] (which is proprietary) as an attempt to help
people break down the discussion into individual ideas. I think their
platform has a lot of shortcomings, but I like the idea of breaking
arguments down into fundamental points and having a tool to help
discuss each point in more depth without detracting from the main
discussion. I also like that people can revise their statements.
A permanent archive of every mistake you make in a discussion is quite
daunting, and not really useful when your original statement is not
understood as you intended.
[1] https://kialo.com
--
Eldon Koyle
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Is there some kind of software that could help people break down their
> >> claims into fundamental parts, then get feedback on the parts
> >> individually, maybe even refining their viewpoint as the discussion
> >> evolves?
> >
> > Prior to considering technical solutions: Have you got any examples of
> > real dispersed communities that are able to avoid the problems you you
> > described?
> >
> > Regardless of technology, I'm not aware of any forums that achieve the
> > kind of formal structure you're talking about, because humans who need
> > to have representative participation tend to be discouraged by greater
> > formal or technical barriers.
> >
> > So what real-world examples would you point to as a counter to that
> > tendency, and how do you think technology helps achieve that improvement
> > in those real-world cases?
>
> I'm not sure this addresses your concern directly, as I've no idea if it
> has specifically been used by whatever you define as a "dispersed
> community", but Minister Audrey Tang mentioned in her talk at DC18 that
> they had used an interesting approach to sorting out the Uber vs. Taxi
> vs. users situation in Taiwan, which you can see from something like the
> 13th minute onwards, here:
>
> https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-minister-tang/
>
> She gets onto the technical solution used in the 17th minute, which is
> pol.is, which appears to be an open-core system, with the Free version
> being here:
>
> https://github.com/pol-is/polisServer
>
> (Note the existence of a contributor agreement)
>
> The thing that impressed me about this (as described in the video) is
> the way that it seems to amplify the constructive aspects of the
> conversation.
>
> I can of course think of problems with using such a thing in Debian, the
> main one being that unlike with government, one cannot just issue orders
> to our volunteers, so it is entirely possible that everyone _not_ doing
> some job in Debian are agreed on how it should be done, but not willing
> to do it, while the people actually doing the job have another idea.
>
> However, if one is trying to reach a wide consensus, and the people
> involved are willing to engage with such a system in order to try to
> find out what people think, and interested to do whatever looks like the
> consensus, and assuming we can ensure that we don't get invaded by
> trolls, but equally are able to get non-debian people with legitimate
> interests in whatever question to join in, it might be worth a look.
>
> Cheers, Phil.
> --
> |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
> |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
> |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
--
Eldon Koyle
Reply to: