Received: from mail-ua0-f186.google.com ([209.85.217.186]:36183) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f0nIl-0001UC-Ta for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:02:23 -0700 Received: by mail-ua0-f186.google.com with SMTP id t34sf15579935uat.3 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:02:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=kK048goYSTslnLFEojDy/4QLjGiq//UhYeMMjU1d8U4=; b=kNOFec51q3UMgy09lpfs4QYKng1o/cwn5nUbPl7sWgvowuHcD0P88M7KzglsmRdopv dgdcJENTUMvmMicU9EFMOSkeTJ9EPX0PY00QG/kOooJy7zxyXMIe7Zhduzz4NdR24XA9 SSVuRi5c0OW+2V+GBtT5vB2gl8r5uhGemq37z5zhWk+T6eN0Uad41vxbdjH5+hP5cGHJ 3IFPQRp21Vw9POxjGG3ePDAKMol9Af4hiWCx+/A1Xqx4m3uYYFaPuDpPns4lPAq5/1H5 emazKhyYt/QN6DCZmoIgfiNMThjNZxgfi2iUDRTCtOXuJ1tllh15+xb4TM3G4a85BKdF y9cg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=kK048goYSTslnLFEojDy/4QLjGiq//UhYeMMjU1d8U4=; b=WWDKCTNHCl+BIOV6l3Tx4L0cZ4c6WVqpEXk6LbC7e7REm63jEZVDgNsaRJVYWZw6/3 hmumNFzq7Z+ZykyHQIrR5hTbLLl+WeGs53Od6boR1W+dDaRb5oaupac4K6ARCBXuBBTW XndotpJbOgHusiXLs44BzkK8NqYC/7Lgu1VujmtCILKpoVPGOITmNfqCvsRNmc3KpVSU Jm5Ue2Dw9jQuDyq4HBSH9EY5K9vrct3TsOhxBjf7IF/0GitWordTmsFAi0pP6g5NL7q/ 3Lqhcxea0ix7GRVqcgRNmv6J50mrWBanXD9ZXilPDLKrLwusJZG9cCiNhMkAqdogfyfm F4Kg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=kK048goYSTslnLFEojDy/4QLjGiq//UhYeMMjU1d8U4=; b=ohyBpqwi+DkZATpQz3eMVp2bdHwvbMBnf8n8nTjZ9Sm1oT9t7IUlWqC1osjWlPVMpf PS4dmoxIPqLFzp+LD6F63pODSCrMZ1ysj8EV/jeiPUEYtyj0ni1QIhuE9IIySyr5viks tFnJ11rfttHcklMMbkrkAnrfwgAsYnWeO/eXoUNHeD5/41tk2P4Zg7oCiJjYj+EDg/US kYY17HRzaHwPt/g9Osrl97hrqfQGPg5CrE2u7aRb0l1IQXmJxYHFniyzWHRpcw0Fnu5B 7K1AYQKHQ5D9dxLMrN9YSQ6jPoKMsr0lLgBacu5JFyUCZgSfwdSSb4byFLe8RVZnEuhR k8xA== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HgWJ+4peXiOPF9GcITi0hOCNEOnFcYgtel3tLiDp4Ir2e6caxw XAw5lLx5niBiCwJdBmINoKs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48IXqPF/ATOmSMhQpwVouNZ5g73L4RYZceHfsxy+GRJPcZhC+fDJdkKW0NixxnUaavFUU2pBQ== X-Received: by 10.31.32.148 with SMTP id g142mr598388vkg.1.1522152121272; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:02:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.31.160.67 with SMTP id j64ls545669vke.21.gmail; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:02:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.31.32.148 with SMTP id g142mr598372vkg.1.1522152120108; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT) From: sukender1@gmail.com To: lojban Message-Id: <85d54835-f03c-4cd7-be3e-5f93073d8005@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <249dd71d-8dcb-ce90-11ff-0beec1f23ef8@posteo.net> References: <78156dc5-1fb3-4e9d-992c-a8f30facc4fd@googlegroups.com> <6ab2b9c0-560a-409f-8ec5-c3f8eaa09041@googlegroups.com> <812dfca3-bc7f-40a5-bcb0-8e1a7062e52f@googlegroups.com> <22c3fb09-3163-444a-be5e-e650e563a39f@googlegroups.com> <54bcdf8c-2526-47ad-b7db-39d7a67fe8a2@googlegroups.com> <249dd71d-8dcb-ce90-11ff-0beec1f23ef8@posteo.net> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: CLL and modern Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_17876_1901153736.1522152119950" X-Original-Sender: sukender1@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_17876_1901153736.1522152119950 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17877_2089862264.1522152119951" ------=_Part_17877_2089862264.1522152119951 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks again for your feedback, Gregorio. I indeed built the system the way you describe: get something functional,= =20 to be improved. I also hope this won't just stay an unused experiment! However about roles, I may add some precisions: currently the system only= =20 has 3 levels : - authenticated (can read/write), - evaluator (can assess the proposal is valid), and - validator (can accept the proposal as becoming official). =20 I think this is simple enough to be usable; don't you think? I'm not sure= =20 we need a "read only" role (despite this would take 5 minutes,=20 technically), or merge evaluators and validators. And instead of the interesting +1/+0/-0/-1, I implemented those flags: - +1: I like this. I say nothing about my participation. - Review 'ok': I'm participating, and I say it's good. - Review 'bad': I'm participating, and I say it contains flaws (to be=20 fixed or not). - Validate: "second round validation", as you told =20 I find it quite a balance between precise floating point evaluations and=20 ultra-simple "yes/no" systems. And this is quite close to the systems you= =20 linked to, IMHO. You (and anyone else) should ask me to grant you test rights (and which=20 one), while the system is still in testing phase. Maybe that would be=20 clearer. I would like to have more flexible types of approval in the future, but for= =20 now it seems the language cannot afford things like lazy consensus, because= =20 of its nature. About comparison with other sites/systems, it may be true that there are=20 similarities. In addition "creating another tool" may seem like dispersion.= =20 But I don't find it easy to get "just what is needed" for this specific=20 case. Maybe this point of view would change when Lojban would be=20 "concentrated" on a single platform? Thanks again. And feel free to ask for account permissions & tweaking and= =20 test more ;-) Cheers Le mardi 27 mars 2018 02:11:57 UTC+2, Gregorio Guidi a =C3=A9crit : > > On 03/26/2018 06:56 AM, suke...@gmail.com wrote: > > Thank you very much for your feedback. I prefer 'harsh and true' reviews= =20 > rather than 'consensual and fake' ones. > > I completely agree with you about the fact it supposes an active communit= y=20 > to work. And this is the main issue, I guess. I fear the non-spreading of= =20 > Lojban, because people may not be active enough to maintain it above a=20 > "sustainability" threshold (eventually worsening into fading and decay). = I=20 > just hope I'm wrong. > (Side note: Generally speaking, people I know are not much interested=20 > about Lojban because... it's not spread enough.) > > About Warnock's dilemma, we may *also* infer that the message is rather= =20 > complex (I mean it requires to be active and interested in multiple=20 > topics)... ;) And this goes with what you say about "complication". Is th= is=20 > really needed? Well, I bet the answer is "yes, until we find something=20 > simpler". Maybe some things are to be improved, to be more "user friendly= "?=20 > I personally think that we may need to add other "tools" in the toolbox.= =20 > Surely a more general tool (to be defined), to make more people go there = &=20 > make it more popular. But I don't know which. Any idea about a=20 > Lojban-related feature that doesn't exist yet somewhere else? > > On the topic of "complication", my philosophy would be more in line with= =20 > the old quote "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not= =20 > simpler". Perhaps it is not much different from what you say in practice,= =20 > there is just more emphasis on the starting point: start with the bare=20 > minimum and add more later if there is evidence that it is not enough. > > I see simplicity in two ways. One aspect is in limiting the number of=20 > different roles and processes codified by the system. One set of roles=20 > already exists by default in every project: participants are divided into= =20 > those with write access to the resources of the project, and those withou= t.=20 > Most times, one can reuse this as the basic layer to recognize roles and= =20 > add only some minimal structures on top of it, if needed. This could be a= =20 > simple starting point. (It is true that Lojban is a bit peculiar, in that= =20 > nobody knows for sure which are the resources of the project and who has= =20 > access to them, but let's put that aside for the moment :) ). > > The other aspect of simplicity is to see if we can spare the effort of=20 > defining everything from scratch, and try to reuse what already exists in= =20 > the wild. Here is a link that I think makes a great starting point for=20 > pointers and ideas: > http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels > > Similar, also useful: https://opensource.guide/leadership-and-governance > > The links above suggest some basic frameworks for the governance of a=20 > shared project. The simplest option is just to have a "benevolent dictato= r"=20 > (it is not so bad as it sounds and works quite well in practice, as=20 > explained here=20 > ). Then= =20 > there are more nuanced options, including sometimes a "Project Management= =20 > Committee" and ways to build and formalize consensus by means of policies= =20 > such as "lazy consensus", commit-then-review, review-then-commit, etc. > https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html > http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancemodel=20 > > https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/BasePolicies/CONTRIBUTING.md > > Voting can play a role, usually as a last resort. When you say that votin= g=20 > should be a straightforward administrative validation procedure in 95% of= =20 > the case, then I agree as in my mind that would not be voting in a strict= =20 > sense but more a second round of review, so your workflow might not be so= =20 > different from these ideas in the end. Speaking of voting, an interest=20 > concept is the one of +1/+0/-0/-1 voting as explained in the links below,= =20 > which I see as a having potential within your workflow. > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancevoting > https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/consensusBuilding.html > > Sorry for the digression... the main takeaway is that there are existing= =20 > approaches (used by projects with millions of users) that rely on a very= =20 > limited number of roles and processes, and seem to scale well. Note that= =20 > these approaches can be put into practice by leveraging simple=20 > collaboration tools (mailing lists and some policies on top of shared=20 > development platforms). If we can find something similar for Lojban, for = me=20 > it would save a lot of effort and be a big win! Coming back to possible= =20 > improvements and new features for the lojban-submissions site, while=20 > confirming the quality of the site and its potential to be repackaged for= =20 > many specific purposes, my point would be that with the right approach to= =20 > governance, we would not need a special site in addition to a standard=20 > shared development platform (the one for putting the code/documents, issu= e=20 > tracking, etc., which would be needed anyway). In fact I think the=20 > similarities between the workflow you proposed and the ones mentioned abo= ve=20 > might be more than the differences, if looking at the big picture. > > About voting: Yes, I also hope that voting should be "a straightforward= =20 > administrative validation procedure for 95% of the cases". This is why th= e=20 > "final" voting is restricted to a reduced sub-community of "validators". = I=20 > also intentionally tried to mimic the "board"-like voting, without the=20 > drawback of a mostly-statically selected sub-community (which may rely on= =20 > inactive members, even if people are nice and willing). But I agree that= =20 > this may look more like competition than collaboration in some=20 > circumstances. Any idea to improve that is welcome :) Maybe adding helper= s=20 > ensuring that decisions are well documented is a good idea? > > (BTW, the link you gave makes me think that we will surely have a peacefu= l=20 > and non-disturbing community (=3D few risks). Anyway, hostile people shou= ld=20 > be reported and can be banned!) > > About the system itself, I don't think there is a real competition with= =20 > other existing ones, since it is (from my point of view) complementary to= =20 > the others. Do you really think there are some duplicates? Which features= =20 > precisely? > > I meant that the process of reviewing a proposal in the lojban-submission= =20 > site can be seen as being in the same territory of Github "Pull requests"= =20 > or similar, which are powerful generic solutions that can be leveraged to= =20 > do any kind of review and approval of changes, including review of design= =20 > decision. The big advantage of these systems is that they are an integral= =20 > part of the platform where the code/resources are maintained, so you do n= ot=20 > have a system where you discuss the changes and a separate one where you = do=20 > the implementation, reducing friction. > > Again kudos for the website and thanks for the interesting discussion,=20 > even if there are not many chances of it becoming something more than a= =20 > theoretical exercise, with the current status of Lojban, unfortunately :/ > > Gregorio > > Finally, thank you for compliments about the site and the underlying=20 > system. Yes, I did that on my spare time. But don't be fooled: I reused a= =20 > lot of components, and wrote very few "low-level" things by myself.=20 > Technically speaking, I used Drupal, many modules, and a little bit of PH= P=20 > & Bash. Time I spent was mostly configuring the whole (server, site,=20 > modules...), integrate database schema into the pre-defined tools (somewh= at=20 > difficult sometimes!), prepare "good" queries, fill pages, etc. The only= =20 > pages I really coded in PHP was admin ones, where I query for invalid or= =20 > duplicate kudos, and the one that lists inactive accounts and emails them= =20 > (not automated yet). So if kudos for me on that product, then maybe more = on=20 > "adapting to the needs" than on programming/web! ;) But thanks anyway. > If you think this should be extended to some other communities, please=20 > tell & "advertise". That may be possible to generalize the system. > > la .sykynder. > > Le samedi 24 mars 2018 02:37:01 UTC+1, Gregorio Guidi a =C3=A9crit :=20 >> >> On 02/06/2018 03:22 PM, suke...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> coi ro do=20 >> >> OPEN ALPHA: A first (public) version of the submission tool is online.= =20 >> Anyone wanting to be a tester can register at=20 >> lojban-submission.sukender.net . I will welcome any feedback to help=20 >> improving it: content, features, issues, etc... >> >> Notes: >> >> - For now, registering requires administrator approval; this=20 >> restriction should be removed later. Please be patient after registra= tion!=20 >> I'll answer as soon as possible. >> - Site has multi-language support (3 languages for now...) and will= =20 >> try to satisfy your browser's language list. You may change the langu= age=20 >> whenever you want (there's a language switcher on pages). Please pref= er=20 >> registering your account details in English (switch language for that= , if=20 >> required) so that everyone can understand. Else, you should think abo= ut=20 >> translating your account details in English *after* registration.=20 >> >> >> Thanks for your help! >> >> >> coi >> >> Since the initial announcement, I didn't see any comments on the mailing= =20 >> list on the proposal. Looking for possible explanations according to War= nock's=20 >> dilemma , I can only= =20 >> infer that there is not much interest on the topic, unfortunately. >> >> I am at fault myself because I registered but did not experiment very=20 >> much with the system until now, by I think a few comments are in order..= . >> >> First, I am really impressed at what you have created based on the=20 >> original discussion and ideas. I can imagine the amount of work you did = to=20 >> get the site to the current level... If you have done it all by yourself= in=20 >> your spare time, I really envy your programming/web skills. Kudos! >> >> About the role that the site can have for the Lojban community, it is=20 >> difficult to make a fair assessment because a tool to organize a communi= ty=20 >> is something that presupposes an active, lively community that needs to = be=20 >> organized. Sadly, I observe that there is no such community at the momen= t,=20 >> and there is not much that a tool can do to correct the situation. >> >> In the hypothetical case that an active community will spring to life, I= =20 >> would say that such a tool would work well and provide a lot of value=20 >> *if* the community had a strong commitment to the organizational rules= =20 >> that are encoded in the tool. On the other hand, I am pessimistic that s= uch=20 >> commitment could be achieved in practice, and I have also some reservati= ons=20 >> on whether it would be actually desirable. >> >> To explain better, let's say the site provides these fundamental service= s=20 >> (simplifying): >> 1. A submission/review/commenting system. >> 2. Management of roles and competences for the users of the system. >> 3. A workflow and approval system based on voting. >> >> My biggest concern is on point 3: in my experience I have never=20 >> encountered a volunteer-based community that put such a strong emphasis = on=20 >> voting as a way to direct the project (I am comparing mainly to the=20 >> innumerable small and large communities about open-source software and= =20 >> similar projects, which have the most similarities with Lojban). In fact= , I=20 >> consider it a sign of poor health if a community routinely resorts to=20 >> voting. A healthy community should rarely need to vote=20 >> .=20 >> In my view voting stimulates competitive (as opposed to collaborative)= =20 >> behavior and usually obscures the need of having a well-defined vision, = a=20 >> limited scope and a coherent design around which consensus-based solutio= ns=20 >> can be found when issues arise. >> >> I see point 2 above (roles and competences) also as being somewhat=20 >> dependent on point 3. It is in a sense a way to mitigate the possible=20 >> shortcomings and manipulation opportunities of the voting system, while= =20 >> keeping the voting system itself in place. Is all this complication real= ly=20 >> needed? >> >> About point 1 (submission/review/comment), the system you built is very= =20 >> good. Taken by itself, though, it suffers from the competition of soluti= ons=20 >> that have been around a long time and that have explored this problem=20 >> domain (think Github code reviews). >> >> Sorry if my assessment sounds a bit harsh, I might be biased from my pas= t=20 >> experiences. In any case, I hope Lojban can find a way to be better=20 >> organized, whatever the organization will be... >> >> And in the end, you managed to give concrete form to the vision you had= =20 >> and build something useful basically from scratch, something that I woul= d=20 >> never have been able to do. So all respect is for you! >> >> TL;DR: The site is extremely well-done and could support a community tha= t=20 >> values voting and user roles as the basis of its organization, but I don= 't=20 >> believe that Lojban should be such a community. >> >> Gregorio >> >> --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 > "lojban" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= =20 > email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_17877_2089862264.1522152119951 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks again for your feedback, Gregorio.
<= br>
I indeed built the system the way you describe: get something= functional, to be improved. I also hope this won't just stay an unused= experiment!

However about roles, I may add some p= recisions: currently the system only has 3 levels :
  • authe= nticated (can read/write),
  • evaluator (can assess the proposal i= s valid), and
  • validator (can accept the proposal as becoming of= ficial).
I think this is simple enough to be usable= ; don't you think? I'm not sure we need a "read only" rol= e (despite this would take 5 minutes, technically), or merge evaluators and= validators.

And instead of the interesting +1/+0/= -0/-1, I implemented those flags:
  • +1: I like this. I say = nothing about my participation.
  • Review 'ok': I'm pa= rticipating, and I say it's good.
  • Review 'bad': I&#= 39;m participating, and I say it contains flaws (to be fixed or not).
  • Validate: "second round validation", as you told
    • <= /ul>
I find it quite a balance between precise floating point eva= luations and ultra-simple "yes/no" systems. And this is quite clo= se to the systems you linked to, IMHO.
You (and anyone else) shou= ld ask me to grant you test rights (and which one), while the system is sti= ll in testing phase. Maybe that would be clearer.

= I would like to have more flexible types of approval in the future, but for= now it seems the language cannot afford things like lazy consensus, becaus= e of its nature.

About comparison with other sites= /systems, it may be true that there are similarities. In addition "cre= ating another tool" may seem like dispersion. But I don't find it = easy to get "just what is needed" for this specific case. Maybe t= his point of view would change when Lojban would be "concentrated"= ; on a single platform?

Thanks again. And feel fre= e to ask for account permissions & tweaking and test more ;-)

Cheers

Le mardi 27 mars 2018 02:11:57 UTC+2, Grego= rio Guidi a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
=20 =20 =20
On 03/26/2018 06:56 AM, suke...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you very much for your feedback. I prefer 'harsh and true' reviews rather than 'consensual and fake' ones.=

I completely agree with you about the fact it supposes an active community to work. And this is the main issue, I guess. I fear the non-spreading of Lojban, because people may not be active enough to maintain it above a "sustainability" threshold (eventually worsening into fading and decay). I just hope I'm wrong.
(Side note: Generally speaking, people I know are not much interested about Lojban because... it's not spread enough.)

About Warnock's dilemma, we may *also* infer that the message is rather complex (I mean it requires to be active and interested in multiple topics)... ;) And this goes with what you say about "complication". Is this really needed? We= ll, I bet the answer is "yes, until we find something simpler"= ;. Maybe some things are to be improved, to be more "user friendly"? I personally think that we may need to add other "tools" in the toolbox. Surely a more general tool (to = be defined), to make more people go there & make it more popular. But I don't know which. Any idea about a Lojban-related feature that doesn't exist yet somewhere else?=
On the topic of "complication", my philosophy would be more i= n line with the old quote "Everything should be made as simple as possibl= e, but not simpler". Perhaps it is not much different from what you s= ay in practice, there is just more emphasis on the starting point: start with the bare minimum and add more later if there is evidence that it is not enough.

I see simplicity in two ways. One aspect is in limiting the number of different roles and processes codified by the system. One set of roles already exists by default in every project: participants are divided into those with write access to the resources of the project, and those without. Most times, one can reuse this as the basic layer to recognize roles and add only some minimal structures on top of it, if needed. This could be a simple starting point. (It is true that Lojban is a bit peculiar, in that nobody knows for sure which are the resources of the project and who has access to them, but let's put that aside for the moment :) ).

The other aspect of simplicity is to see if we can spare the effort of defining everything from scratch, and try to reuse what already exists in the wild. Here is a link that I think makes a great starting point for pointers and ideas:
http:/= /oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels

Similar, also useful: https://opensource.guide/leadership-and-governance<= /a>

The links above suggest some basic frameworks for the governance of a shared project. The simplest option is just to have a "benevolen= t dictator" (it is not so bad as it sounds and works quite well in practice, as explained here). Then there are more nuanced options, including sometimes a "Projec= t Management Committee" and ways to build and formalize consensus by means of policies such as "lazy consensus", commit-then-revie= w, review-then-commit, etc.
https://openoffice.apache.org/= docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/re= sources/meritocraticgovernancemodel
= https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/BasePolicies/CONTRIBUTI= NG.md

Voting can play a role, usually as a last resort. When you say that voting should be a straightforward administrative validation procedure in 95% of the case, then I agree as in my mind that would not be voting in a strict sense but more a second round of review, so your workflow might not be so different from these ideas in the end. Speaking of voting, an interest concept is the one of +1/+0/-0/-1 voting as explained in the links below, which I see as a having potential within your workflow.
https://www.apac= he.org/foundation/voting.html
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/me= ritocraticgovernancevoting
https://openoffi= ce.apache.org/docs/governance/consensusBuilding.html

Sorry for the digression... the main takeaway is that there are existing approaches (used by projects with millions of users) that rely on a very limited number of roles and processes, and seem to scale well. Note that these approaches can be put into practice by leveraging simple collaboration tools (mailing lists and some policies on top of shared development platforms). If we can find something similar for Lojban, for me it would save a lot of effort and be a big win! Coming back to possible improvements and new features for the lojban-submissions site, while confirming the quality of the site and its potential to be repackaged for many specific purposes, my point would be that with the right approach to governance, we would not need a special site in addition to a standard shared development platform (the one for putting the code/documents, issue tracking, etc., which would be needed anyway). In fact I think the similarities between the workflow you proposed and the ones mentioned above might be more than the differences, if looking at the big picture.

About voting: Yes, I also hope that voting should be "a straightforward administrative validation procedure for 95% of the cases". This is why the "final" voting is rest= ricted to a reduced sub-community of "validators". I also intention= ally tried to mimic the "board"-like voting, without the dra= wback of a mostly-statically selected sub-community (which may rely on inactive members, even if people are nice and willing). But I agree that this may look more like competition than collaboration in some circumstances. Any idea to improve that is welcome :) Maybe adding helpers ensuring that decisions are well documented is a good idea?

(BTW, the link you gave makes me think that we will surely have a peaceful and non-disturbing community (=3D few risks). Anyway, hostile people should be reported and can be banned!)

About the system itself, I don't think there is a real competition with other existing ones, since it is (from my point of view) complementary to the others. Do you really think there are some duplicates? Which features precisely?
I meant that the process of reviewing a proposal in the lojban-submission site can be seen as being in the same territory of Github "Pull requests" or similar, which are powerful generic solutions that can be leveraged to do any kind of review and approval of changes, including review of design decision. The big advantage of these systems is that they are an integral part of the platform where the code/resources are maintained, so you do not have a system where you discuss the changes and a separate one where you do the implementation, reducing friction.

Again kudos for the website and thanks for the interesting discussion, even if there are not many chances of it becoming something more than a theoretical exercise, with the current status of Lojban, unfortunately :/

Gregorio

Finally, thank you for compliments about the site and the underlying system. Yes, I did that on my spare time. But don'= t be fooled: I reused a lot of components, and wrote very few "low-level" things by myself. Technically speaking, I u= sed Drupal, many modules, and a little bit of PHP & Bash. Time I spent was mostly configuring the whole (server, site, modules...), integrate database schema into the pre-defined tools (somewhat difficult sometimes!), prepare "good" q= ueries, fill pages, etc. The only pages I really coded in PHP was admin ones, where I query for invalid or duplicate kudos, and the one that lists inactive accounts and emails them (not automated yet). So if kudos for me on that product, then maybe more on "adapting to the needs" than on programming/web= ! ;) But thanks anyway.
If you think this should be extended to some other communities, please tell & "advertise". That may be possible to generalize the system.

la .sykynder.

Le samedi 24 mars 2018 02:37:01 UTC+1, Gregorio Guidi a =C3=A9crit= =C2=A0:
On 02/06/2018 03:22 PM, suke...@gmail.= com wrote:
coi ro do

OPEN ALPHA: A first (public) version of the submission tool is online. Anyone wanting to be a tester can register at lojban-s= ubmission.sukender.net . I will welcome any feedback to help improving it: content, features, issues, etc...

Notes:
  • For now, registering requires administrator approval; this restriction should be removed later. Please be patient after registration! I'll answer as soon as possible.
  • Site has multi-language support (3 languages for now...) and will try to satisfy your browser's language list. You may change the language whenever you want (there's a language switcher on pages). Please prefer registering your account details in English (switch language for that, if required) so that everyone can understand. Else, you should think about translating your account details in English after registration.

Thanks for your help!

coi

Since the initial announcement, I didn't see any comments o= n the mailing list on the proposal. Looking for possible explanations according to Warnock's dilemma, I can only infer that there is not much interest on the topic, unfortunately.

I am at fault myself because I registered but did not experiment very much with the system until now, by I think a few comments are in order...

First, I am really impressed at what you have created based on the original discussion and ideas. I can imagine the amount of work you did to get the site to the current level... If you have done it all by yourself in your spare time, I really envy your programming/web skills. Kudos!

About the role that the site can have for the Lojban community, it is difficult to make a fair assessment because a tool to organize a community is something that presupposes an active, lively community that needs to be organized. Sadly, I observe that there is no such community at the moment, and there is not much that a tool can do to correct the situation.

In the hypothetical case that an active community will spring to life, I would say that such a tool would work well and provide a lot of value if the community had a strong commitment to the organizational rules that are encoded in the tool. On the other hand, I am pessimistic that such commitment could be achieved in practice, and I have also some reservations on whether it would be actually desirable.

To explain better, let's say the site provides these fundamental services (simplifying):
1. A submission/review/commenting system.
2. Management of roles and competences for the users of the system.
3. A workflow and approval system based on voting.

My biggest concern is on point 3: in my experience I have never encountered a volunteer-based community that put such a strong emphasis on voting as a way to direct the project (I am comparing mainly to the innumerable small and large communities about open-source software and similar projects, which have the most similarities with Lojban). In fact, I consider it a sign of poor health if a community routinely resorts to voting. A healt= hy community should rarely need to vote. In my view voting stimulates competitive (as opposed to collaborative) behavior and usually obscures the need of having a well-defined vision, a limited scope and a coherent design around which consensus-based solutions can be found when issues arise.

I see point 2 above (roles and competences) also as being somewhat dependent on point 3. It is in a sense a way to mitigate the possible shortcomings and manipulation opportunities of the voting system, while keeping the voting system itself in place. Is all this complication really needed?

About point 1 (submission/review/comment), the system you built is very good. Taken by itself, though, it suffers from the competition of solutions that have been around a long time and that have explored this problem domain (think Github code reviews).

Sorry if my assessment sounds a bit harsh, I might be biased from my past experiences. In any case, I hope Lojban can find a way to be better organized, whatever the organization will be...

And in the end, you managed to give concrete form to the vision you had and build something useful basically from scratch, something that I would never have been able to do. So all respect is for you!

TL;DR: The site is extremely well-done and could support a community that values voting and user roles as the basis of its organization, but I don't believe that Lojban should be such a community.

Gregorio

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://grou= ps.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.googl= e.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_17877_2089862264.1522152119951-- ------=_Part_17876_1901153736.1522152119950--