< DRAFT++ >
Page edited by all, curated by @dcht00.
HACC decides on proposals collectively, somehow. The format of putting proposals forward, and handling them afterwards, is a matter of proposals and decisions itself.
20200822 "basic form" proposals <dcht00
20200824 stub <dcht00
xxxxxxxx review/comments by +blipp
20210419 full review <dcht00 →D
20210422 <dcht00 →D++
Table of Contents
*** MAIN QUESTIONS
* How to practically organize a HACC FORUM (meeting/session) at events?
* How to make PROPOSALS about how HACC should work? How will they be evaluated?
* What is, how to start a, LC (local chapter)?
* What is, how to start a, WG (workgroup)?
* What is, how to start a, PROJECT?
* What are our common resources and INFRASTRUCTURE? How are they made open, transparent, and supported by largest possible consensus (not self-will)?
*** PROPOSAL TOPICS
related to organization
enabling inclusivity & and spread of HACC
a question to HACC
a proposal related to a common "direction" on a political issue, either provisional or encoded, that we adopt
a task to be confirmed, and taken up (with a mandate)
specific to HACC broad self-organized events, aka Forums
*** ACCEPTED PROPOSALS
D: (ORGA) Channel is international, language is English
D: (ORGA) Channel moderation needs to be distributed, to represent existing international group & past initiative
RW: (ORGA) Make regular monthly call on 10th
RW→dcht00: "Hi! One thing I thought about, but obviously did not start yet, was a monthly international mumble/jitsi/bbb call. Maybe always on the 10th of a month (so the day of the week changes)."
→ https://app.element.io/#/room/#hacc:matrix.org/$1598021009310229suGRU:matrix.org Friday August 21, 16:43
D: (ORGA) Make second monthly call every 25th
RW+D: (ORGA) "Hacker Seeks" project
Becomes a main frame for the HACC forums.
It scaffolds not only self presentation in front of a large group, but also:
* offering or asking collaboration
More on project site.
*** PROPOSALS TO DISCUSS
[!!!] D: (ORGA) HACC governance model step 0: Proposals document
HACC needs a governance model to reach widening consensus of the stakeholders evident in its own name.
A system of named proposals (=this document) is proposed.
These have been called "mini groups" (as early as the first 35c3 session):
as opt-in deliberation groups reporting to the main forum, to reach more general consensus.
* These would then be decided on in some sort of a group of interested in the topic
* with some sort of a minimal representation / quorum
[!!] D: (CHARTER/ORGA) Basic form of HACC
"HACC" is the main, international group:
* it follows, reproduces and extends the original logic of HACC operation:
Facilitating mass meetings of its namesake stakeholders. (previously, at end-of-year CCC events).
The logic of this group grows organically, out of its own evolving tradition.
It is intuitive to anyone that has ever attended it.
Its practices of inclusive participation, equality, encouragement and representation are binding to all.
* HACC oversees & maintains common collaborative infrastucture, to function online:
1) Main Matrix group
2) Collaborative infrastructure: Pads
3) Static website:
A) none, as pads are sufficient
B) clear process of making changes (no gatekeepers!):
If there is a reason for a privileged-edit site, it needs to be clearly justified.
(This has not been the case with neither pads or wiki.)
* HACC must be heterodox, non-discriminatory, and prevent exclusion:
1) communication is done strictly within tools confirmed via consensus:
For example: we do not start up and promote new tools & domains with HACC name just because a subset of people feels like that's a good idea
We recognize, also from HACC experience, is a form of weakening the community.
2) communication in international channels is strictly in ENG
[!!] D: (ORGA/COMMUNITY) HACC vowes to adopt a code of conduct both for online and offline operation:
* Enforcing is a work for the administration.
* For online communication:
We recognize it can turn unneccessary heated by misunderstanding, cultural difference, and momentous circumstance, but also by coordinated attacks.
Please attempt to resolve differences:
1) in private messages, in person
2) after trying that, refer to a neutral moderator
3) then take it up into a general ring
* We appoints a steward, responsible for overseeing all of this.
[!!] D: (ORGA/COMMUNITY) HACC forum: Regular meetings at events
At every CCC:
1) GENERAL FORUM (first session)
general round of presentatons
most suitable for people who've never been to HACC before
includes presentations by delegates from all WGs and LCs
about half of the time is a free discussion, a moderated maximizing general and diverse participation (with pads)
pads are later processed by the editorial team
2) META / COORDINATION
meet & greet
review past year developments
review, decide on, shape new proposals
appoint new stewards
oversee new WG & LC formation
WG specific work
4) CONSOLIDATION (last session)
specific format, aimed at connecting, crosslinking, consolidating, and internationally replicating groups
expert mediated, to try reaching strong results
____ $$$$ ____
D: (ORGA) WGs —Workgroups
The topical workgroups.
* Can be proposed by anyone:
at first, they work freely in incubation
must relate to all other groups, and establish overlaps, topic borders, and coordination
confirmed at earliest yearly general meeting
* present activities at a general HACC meeting for this purpose
* prepare physical artefacts for the HACC booth (for "CCC about:future" or similar)
* organize own meetings and workshops:
following guidelines on how to publish them
* coordinate with a WG steward
* have their own matrix channel.
* use common collaborative infrastructure
appoint a steward that catalyze this.
this is a yearly position, that can be challenged in August (so we don't miss preparation for next CCC).
empty positions are taken by general steward.
D: (ORGA) LCs — Local chapters
reports activities at special coordination meeting, reserved for this purpose.
D: (INCLUSION) Make HACC-INT an ENG-only group. Make all coordination there.
Or - if not there - in specialized groups which are also open, and linked from the main indexes.
### blipp: "main indexes"? is that #hacc:matrix.org? or the entry page to wiki/pads?
yes, I think we definitely need to have a look at all the groups, and designate them according to language
we assume all DE people speak EN
if there will be side discussion in DE it will never work internationally
so I am warming up to have that group overview, and figure out how to get HACC out of this problem
IMO the state of not being determined is the most dangerous one, as it leads to "well, we already have a group about that, but most of people are from DE, so we speak DE, but we could also speak EN".
... as it leads to the feeling there is no need for an EN group, does not make it an inviting participation (to "force" other group to change), etc.
TLDR: Groups should have a set of language designations, and there should be a default ENG group.
"if languages are used that are not understood by all:
this ostracizes people & makes them less capable of participating == makes them unwelcome", then please go ahead and ask me for more explanation
I support having #hacc:matrix.org as an English-speaking group by default.
I think we should be fine with people who do not speak English to come into the channel
and ask something in a different language: There could be language-specific channels, like
#hacc-fr:matrix.org, #hacc-es:matrix.org etc. Then someone asking « Parlez-vous français ? »
could be pointed to the French room. It might be problematic if too many discussions only
happen in a language-specific room and the main room does miss on information updates.
So this should be well-organized such that things being discussed in a language-specific group
and that are interesting for HACC-INT flow back there (I guess this is the same challenge as
with local groups and working groups)
D: (Q) Naming !
I noticed also "HACC-GLOBAL" mentioned.
I think both are fine. Any others suggestions or opinions?
* hackers against climate ... what?:
change < crisis < catastrophe < cataclysm
A) pick one
B) adopt all, let people figure it out
C) play at the multipliers
blipp: HACC-INT sounds funny because it is close to OSINT as in
Open Source Intelligence and other similar *INTs, so if we want that
pun we can have it I guess.
RW: () Make hacc.earth the main site
Well it is planned to make hacc.earth a landing page that wraps up the hacc activities.
All options to get active or in contact with hacc, including the wiki, are mentioned there.
* first, i oppose the "it is planned" formulation - it is planned where and by whom?
* the site needs to keep being reasonably editable by all HACC, as was wiki & pad:
there was a consensus for this
needs to be git
pull requests handled by ???
blipp: I think that it can be nice to have a nice-looking landing page (sorry for the word) for
hacc. The experiment hacc.earth has indeed gotten a, to me, very appealing design. I say
experiment because HACC-MUC says that they did not really use this website yet. By using
I mean, that they did not show this website to anyone yet. This claim can be supported by:
For me this website does not show up in any search results for “hacc” or “hackers against
climate change” or on hacc.wiki. So I suggest that we take a step back – no harm has been
done. If hacc.earth (and it is a nice domain indeed) were to become the landing page,
I believe it is a must that there is an accessible process to change the contents of the
website: be it sourced from a wiki, a pad, a Git repo that automatically merges mergerequests if
some amount of reviewers have given their green; some process like this.
stuebinm: (ORGA) Instead of "protocols", call them "guidelines" or "suggestions"
this not a matter of what you call it, but what it means. guidelines are vague, and protocols are binding.
some matters can be taken care of with "suggestions", but others need protocols.
RW: (ORGA) Suggests a "core team" as "light gatekeeper", and to make a Verein
Of course probably some people will be part of a core team of hacc but we don't want to be some strong gatekeeper. As we most likely will become a 'eingetragener Verein' (registered association) in the future there probably is also a legal part involved.
I propose the Verein is limited to the HACC-MUC LC
it can perform roles for HACC-INT but only under strict and specific mandates - consensus from other groups
reason for that includes the typical problem if not done so:
the Verein board opposes democratic mandates, since "they have a personal legal responsibility"
so in that way, situations happen when they (self-)selectively advance and block HACC-INT initiatives
all of this should be simulated with TEST CASES!
* presentation ("this is our wiki" or "this is the wiki of a global organisation we are a local chapter of"?)
* use of funds (if for example HACC CANARIAS gets significant local funds, do they
- as far as I know, this Verein _is_ indeed already meant to be limited to HACC-MUC LC and more
specifically to have a legal framework for their infra4future project (to be confirmed with them)
D: (ORGA/SPREAD) Re-structure HACC : Global & Chapters
1→ ENABLE NEW LCs (local chapters)
make it clear what it means to start a local group. actively make space, and encourage, for new groups to start. have a kit
2→ HACC-INT, the congress and online HACC, is a group of its own
this is where there were most people
3→ define a way for different groups to consolidate their work - a protocol between nodes:
depending on the success of this, HACC could be either of two different things:
3A) "HACC as directory":
... of local groups and some work groups, with no clear relation, possible overlaps, etc
3B) "HACC as more than a directory - the HACC ecosystem":
where groups inter-relate
more complicated, but I would bet that it is the way to go.
not just for HACC, but for the other million groups spawning up.
tools for organisation and processes should be our strong point, so perhaps we can help contribute something here
"""What is "hacc"? How to start a new regional chapter?"""
Since there has been a lot of discussion on this, I'll attempt to give the broadest definition I can: hacc, meaning "hackers against climate change" (or "hackers against climate crisis"), is:
anyone and everyone who feels comfortable being described as such, which I'd understand as "following the hacker ethics, and doing something against climate change".
There can therefore be no way to make any group "officially hacc"; dcht00 : if you and the group at CHT consider yourselves as such, then you are a local group of hacc; the only point to discuss is then how these groups communicate with each other.
D: (CHARTER/INCLUSION) HACC is more than just HACC-MUC, and always was. HACC-INT must regain strength.
We must not anull the work of others.
Even though HACC-MUC was the local group that consistently met, maybe only one, there were other forms of work done. We must work towards making them visible, and support them in the future.
I was very happy to see the Munich group forming and taking the HACC name.
The question is to think, or perhaps rethink, how that works formally:
A) HACC == HACC MUNICH
B) HACC == international initiative centered at CCC events, and HACC-MUNICH is a local chapter, somehow coordinating with HACC-INT
Is there anyone here that believes A, or wants to believe A?
I think there must be unequivocally no doubt that HACC is B.
HACC-MUC IS A SUCCESS,
BUT WE MUST MAKE SURE HACC IS BIGGER THAN THAT.
WE MUST MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS,
AND SO, IN FACT WE MUST ASSUME THEM.
I am aware of that.
My explanation & rationale of it is that HACC became inpenetrable by non-Germans because of a lack of good organisational separation
I'm happy the Munich group took off and went off to do great things, but I hope what I said is clear
Last congress I went around trying to figure out what was going on with HACC and people told me stuff like:
"yeah, it's now replaced by Bits & Bäume" and so on.
that simply CANNOT be the case
HACC is essentially an international group, with chapters.
If it is to survive and be successful, it needs to go in this direction.
Well not because of missing organisational separation,
there never was someone actively doing it.
I mean investing time and that over a longer period, staying in contact with others and so on. We have a lot of other stuff to do. So please don't blame us. :-) If you would like define hacc in a different/broader way be and stay active! As I said earlier, I don't care about names. If you have a great project concerning climate change and/or sustainability under your own name or in other groups, tell about it. If your project is to make hacc more international: Do it! :-)
I think this argument reminds me of "if women want to be in politics or tech, they should just make those decisions!"
Well establishing this, I am concerned that you are not taking what I said seriously enough
somebody who contributed a lot to HACC,
I expressed a concern about the organizational structure that prevented me from contributing more
### blipp: I suggest reformatting this part above a bit to make clearer what are citations inside citations etc
D: (SPREAD) Add CHT HACKBASE as HACC canarias LC
... add it to materials everywhere.
... consider what this means.
in addition, I would also like to see CHT - the hackbase where I am right now (https://next.totalism.org) - to be considered a HACC node of some sort. this also needs some institutional plumbing. :)
This addition can also shape up:
* what we deem as a "minimum" to becoming, and keep being a group
* group attributes:
* active (and regularly represented) OR sleeper
* offers infra global? (virtual infra, etc)
* offers infra local? (media support, in-person consultation, etc)
* does field research?
* writes (and presents to other groups) common documentation?)
* active in WGs ...?
D: (ORGA/INCLUSION) Re-distribute HACC-INT group moderation
This is a symbolic and formal recognition that HACC currently has no mandates to power,
and that power can - at least until any other governance would be established for whatever reason - only function as stewardship, via merit of "elders".
In addition, RW , I would prefer if I would not need to repeat/rephrase my question, but here goes: How come you are the only moderator? I am asking you to distribute the moderation to other people. If you are lost for a criteria, than I suggest that mods are people who have been with HACC from the beginning, meaning they have personal ties to others in the group.
### blipp: I suggest to remove focus a bit form the past/from RW long being the only moderator. Reiterating this here as a citation could be offending and take away some of the progress we made in the #hacc:matrix.org channel today. Maybe just rephrase it as/replace that citation by a concrete proposal like: HACC-INT Group administration/moderation should be distributed amongst a diverse set of members of HACC-INT and of HACC local groups (just as an example).
D: (TASK/ORGA/INCLUSION) List other "shadow" coordination spaces, move coordination to HACC-INT
By "shadow" I mean any space that is not currently listed on public-accesible HACC INDEX.
You or somebody else mentioned that this group is not really the one to coordinate HACC things. Forgive me, but which one is it then?
As far as I see no other group is mentioned either on hacc.wiki or even hacc.earth .
RW: We in Munich probably are the best contact.
Was this an invitation to Munich in order to coordinate? ;-)
Make sure that all HACC-INT related things are inclusively discussed.
D: (CHARTER/INCLUSION) Make HACC more enabling and inclusive
Do we agree:
→ that we have so far not been succesfull at this?
→ we need to comitted, and remain comitted to this?
I think I agree that there has not been an “enabling structure” for this. Like:
guiding new people who hit the channel to a possible participation etc,
making it easy to add chapters on the wiki, etc
it might have worked for the people you personally consider allies and you have within your physical reach,
but HACC failed to progress as a forum in the mold of what happens at CCC
D: (TASK/SPREAD) Make an outreach to existing "sleeper cells" of HACC
Make it easier to adopt some sort of a chapter, recognize, point back.
They just don't carry the "brand" yet:
* EHF @ https://ecohackerfarm.org
* many hackerspaces
* every hackerspace should have a HACC group? yes/no?
* should there be "shared programme":
basically, somebody "presents" what other groups are working on?
* ............ so:
HOW SHOULD LOCAL GROUPS FUNCTION
D: (TASK/ORGA) HACC-MUC to provide an overview of methods & results of work
So that other LCs can be positively informed.
How did it work for you?
What did you accomplish?
How did you cooperate with Siegen?
How do you imagine this could work if there are 10 or 100 HACC groups?
D: (ORGA) HACC should be able to give mandates
This should happen by some sort of a consensus.
(this is the missing part)
Form of how to do this ("governance") is a separate proposal.
1) To prevent perceived problems in self-appointment
you were never given a mandate to admin the HACC channel and control the power dynamics there
2) To encourage and catalyze - to give mandate - to efforts:
* giving support to projects
* supporting politcal positions
* supporting delegates in contacts with other structures
D: (TASK/CHARTER) Develop a core HACC statement. Read it every time.
yeah, climate change is real
we are dedicated to be a heterodox movement, united by representing people who self-identify as hackers, who are dedicated to oppose
we are aware that technology, and various other fields we as self-identified hackers represent, is a force with transformational potential
that does not mean we naively believe we can "solve it"
but that there is a range of outcomes - some more desirable than others
we oppose destruction of environments
we oppose displacement of people
we oppose imperialism and the military-industrial complex
Collect similar statements:
* critical engineering manifesto
D: (TODO/PROTOCOL/FORUMS) Organising events
We need a protocol that makes sure we don't mess up, as we did on cccamp19 & 36c3.
Have a steward:
responsible to oversee it all goes well, is registered in time, tec
* mailing list
* HACC-INT matrix
* (anywhere else?)
* there is sufficient space (100 people min)
* at least 2 dates (day 1/2 & day 3/4)
* speakers ready:
* people to represent WGs and LCs
D: (CHARTER/FORUMS) "No stages" at HACC forums
Perhaps it sounds weird, unrealistic or abstract.
But the guideline is pretty simple:
* HACC at its best is a forum, an "open panel".
* some prologue is needed to set the stage for discussion - a very short presentation, no more than 3 minutes
* then, the people take over.
* however, effective moderation is neccessary for best result:
* encouraging & actively inclusive:
try to get everybody to speak.
play with the format.
stop people speaking longer. stop them speaking for second time before others spoke once.
this is not an easy role, and takes high-energy. you will need to interrupt people.
explain this upstart.
if there are 100 people in the room and there's 120 minutes, replies cannot last more than 40 seconds.
* embrace the pads:
instead of speaking, replies can be written down
perhaps they could also be upvoted!
D: (SPREAD) Encourage participation by tying membership to activity
I think many of us, across different projects, have been caught up in being interested in a topic, maybe investing to join some channels and say hi, but then losing the connection.
This proposal tries to:
* ping members regularly, to see what their status is. ask them actively - are they being able to do work? what is going on? what do they need?
* discuss the function of non-active members ("lurkers"):
* what are the positive sides of having a channel full of people who have long since muted it?
* some negative are obvious:
* more difficult to follow who is really present, have a knit-group, browse active members
* zero barrier of entry to adverserial lurking
* increased anxiety of "speaking in front of a crowd", whereas in fact many have no constructive intention?
* random participation in problematic moments ("people who only like to argue"), backed by no constructive participation
* needs to be made sure that some are not only "temporarily lurking", and maintain a possibility and intention to contribute at some point
* ... this can be solved with the regular pulse checks above
* ... but this within limits
* ... should there be a limit to non-active members
[!!] D: (ORGA) List all resources + Discuss staff & governance
Example: the mailing list
* Who admins it?
* Is it moderated or not?
* Can we have a clearer system of who and under what conditions? :)
* Why is the history not open?
We are in a situation where anyone with 5 minutes of time created services "to have something going", but then years later, it's not clear who's running what, on whose server, if they're still around, if they're functioning, etc.
so To be specific, "email@example.com" came back . it's published here: https://hacc.uber.space/mailman/listinfo , with "If you are having trouble using the lists, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org."
[!!] D: (ORGA/COMMUNITY) Reviev mailing list, document, make a plan, restart
* email@example.com leads nowhere
* enable archives?
<------------------------------------- (new) PROPOSALS, 1ST CIRCLE ↑
[!!] D: (ORGA) Control any use of "HACC" by consensus
We won't, or can't, trademark and sue, but the spirit is that,
without a mandate,
you do not:
start new channels,
launch new websites,
represent yourself as HACC at some event
You seek a mandate.
### blipp: depending on how you decide what determines if a group is a “hacc” group,
there might be a contradiction here: If everyone who accepts the HACC statement can operate
under the name of Hacc (like XR seems to handle this), as it has been proposed somewhere
above in this pad, then this seems to be a contradiction. I am not taking position for one
of the two proposals, just pointing out the possible contradiction.
blipp: Questions to ask:
- should a local group need a mandate for every local event?
- should a local group need a mandate for their own local group website?
or is this proposal about the main website of HACC-INT?
D: (PROJECT) Editorial WG
Create protocols/guidelines for editorial processing of the collaborative content-creation.
The pad doesn't look bad at all, in fact it's kind of an interesting read.
I wonder if we could develop a protocol (or "guideline") to process this kind of insights into more organised content, overview, systematics, and ACTION, connection between people that last, material that is easy to read, that inspires.
D: (ORGA/OPEN) solve issues associated with hacc.earth launch
https://hacc.earth has been kind of eased in, without a consultation of the wider community, or a consensus.
As late as August 2020, questions about what it will be, how it will be edited, or what role it will play to other sides, were sidelined.
At some point, it has became a de-facto landing page, as demonstrated by chat room topic, and 2nd position on Google (after hacc.wiki, which refers to it).
Among the most problematic part is considered the contacts part, which exposes "firstname.lastname@example.org" as its primary, well above the public mailing list, the wiki, or the Matrix channel.
No system of reporting to the wider community has been established. This has never been debated with anyone — including the people representing and promoting HACC at CCC events.
I consider this unacceptable, and a form of postal interception. The fact it was not considered or done on purpose, does not change how serious it is.
I ask the group that presented themselves as "postmasters", when I contacted the address, to cease this activity, and some form of community oversight over the mails that may have been received at this address.
D: hedgedoc concerns
we'd also need to get somebody that wants to deal with hedgedoc a little bit more. it's missing some critical features for hacc, and it is untested with larger groups. from what i've seen, it becomes pretty weird already with 2 or 3 people writing at the same time.
i'm just saying this to express that using hedgedoc is an experiment for me, i hope it works out, but it might take an administration team that both understands (as in, has any experience whatsoever with) large-scale knowledge production , and is willing to make moves and put in serious work to maintain, perfect and tune it at the platform level.
luckily, migration would be quite trivial, (as will be for the wiki). i never worry too much about that
to be more concrete ... i'm writing another overview about this (comparison with etherpad & wiki systems too), as i'm using and editorializing the hedgedoc instance.
one thing that i instantly miss is authorship colors. probably should be possible to config
Do we need to scale to Mars while we can't even fly yet?
1peter10: it's not so much about scaling, as usually understood in computer circles
the drawbacks i look for is finding something that might disable the core experience, and that cannot be easily addressed
for wikis, in a nutshell, that's the login problems, the weird editing & syntax. it takes an order of magnitude longer to make a simple change than it does to a pad. that makes it specifically unsuitable for hacc-like groups for ... several reasons
but also 1peter10 one thing i believe in is moonshots
... the concerns about multi-writing are not abstract, the totalism pads had dozens of editors at the same time. we need to have a unified pad system, meaning if we adopt hedgedoc, we use that at events as well, right? so, it's not a resource scaling concern (though, might be for hedgedoc?), as it is about the usability.
last meeting, i experienced several times weird UI behaviour, skipping lines, inability to see what who corrected, etc.
HD's revision history also seems a bit raw
i think this has actually also been expressed by the hacc divoc collaborator, when she spoke about FFF's experience
a la "it drives everyone mad". anyway, let's give it a try :) i commit to doing the best i can with it, and if we find out it doesn't work, i'm fine with doing the transition.
Oh another thing to mention in passing. A mattermost instance has been mentioned a few times now. But i've never seen it linked anywhere personally. Does this mean we can assume it's MUC only, or does it have any international character, has been advertised, etc? (Otherwise, what's the link, etc?)
D: (ORGA) delegation & representation
RW: , also @room , I have to ask — this maiiing list looks quite relevant, and I never saw it mentioned anywhere around HACC. Did I miss something?I don't think we were at that stage before, but in the consensus models I have experience with, and I suppose we are attempting to build, two important concepts are delegation, and a high attention to transparency of external contacts
In my experience, consensus is often endangered by people taking, or being assumed to be in representation roles, with outside partners — sometimes without anyone in the community knowing that anything's up, or a passing "mention" somewhere. This all will mostly happen without any bad intentions, but for that reason, we need to have some guidelines. I think a really simple one is to ask everyone, but especially any HACC mods/organizers, in which groups they are participating. If they're publc, it would be great to share so others can join this. For semi-public, to an clearly delimited internal circle. But especially if they are private, and they are or might be perceived as representing HACC, I suppose there should be some simple guidelines about that.
RW: I thought I heard you mention a few groups in which you're coordinating, or recently, have been invited kind of in the HACC role. At some point it would be good to figure out how to do this.
D (ORGA) ... CONT, re the "mod group"
... And a third thing, so related to what I wrote above with talk about delegation & transparency — I think I've already announced / proposed / mentioned this group in passing on the main HACC group. But anyway, now that
RW has joined us, we can take some next steps to figure out what our role, delineation and responsibilities are, too.
I've already advanced my invitation to other mods several times on the channel, but I'll maintain that I want those people to have attended several HACC events, which automatically would also mean we have met in person, and that we have a fairly synced idea of HACC.
BLIPP, D: subdomains
my take on subdomains : what blippsaid, I even like the considerations of abbreviations. i'd add that you can xyz.muc.hacc.* whatever you want, what we need though, is how it can become xyz.hacc.* . i feel we've done some good work shaping the criteria on this at the last session.
D: not i4f-only login on pads
one thing that wasn't mentioned anywhere yet: pad.hacc.space needs to allow equal login with other IDs than "infra4future". if this cannot be provided, than i4f needs to go as well. right now i4f has privileged access which is a no go afaic
D (HISTORY/EVENTS/ORGA): main historic problems of hacc event orga
The main historic problems of HACC session organization were
1) it's unclear who's supposed to do it, and at all of camp, 36c3 and rc3 there was this idea that something was being organized, but then it kind of wasn't really - was not announced, promoted, prepared, etc.
(just to make sure it's understood correctly, I'm not blaming, i'm just pointing out it did not work. at camp it failed, at 36c3 moep and I managed to save it after realizing it was about to fail again. rc3 didn't work again, but that was a pretty obscure one. Divoc, RW, we did together, and I found it good again.)
2) what organizing means. I'm establishing clarity about this in my proposals (will be up for consensus in one of the next sessions).
D: (###) Governance, representation, decisions making
Proposed <dcht00 ~ 2020-08-22
UNFINISHED SKETCH. ###
Feel free to add more perspectives.
Decision making has to weigh, in some way, between at least the following voices:
* the founder(s) / initiator(s)
* people who have been there at the beginning
* people who have done work
* people who have stayed continuously since their arrival
* people who have built LCs and WGs
* random people showing up when there is a vote, evaluating the proposals at hand
* people who were not there at a vote time, but would like to have a say
* people who are impacted by the decision, are not present, but can be reasonably represented
Additionally, these positions should also be considered:
* "HACC is a do-ocracy":
you can do whatever you want and use the name in whatever way you like
who controls the domains, and by what right?
if not consulted, isn't this extractive of all the participation that was done before?
XYZ: (ORGA/###) Change the name
Proposed <??? ~ 35c3
This idea floated at the beginning.
D: (ORGA/###) Wiki->E2H migration
Proposed <dcht00 ~35c3
It is proposed that pads work better, since:
* the majority of HACC-INT content will be authored this way.
* dcht00 volunteers to edit the pads, and nobody else volunteers to edit the wikis
* E2H will provide downloadable exports of all content, so it will not be lost
* anyone MUST be able to make copies
* at least one other endpoint MUST make copies regularly
LIES: (ORGA/RESEARCH) Compare organization with XR (and others)
It might be interesting to look into, and compare, orga models with for example XR.
See "How to start a local group"-document
* non-decisions (ND)
feel free to just do it
but, seeks supporters, or, "promotors"
* no-objection consensus
"i want to do this, any objections?"
* seeking full-consensus
somewhere where some sort of unity is needed
* (pre decision, in general discussion)
These are not clearly formulated, might be more complicated to resolve, and should be understood as:
* something to think about
* address only at the right moments
* refer to them, if same/similar concerns spring up spontaneously
* Between two options, try one. Define fail conditions. Then try B.
As long as it's a somewhat reversible process.
* Maintainer decides
Whoever will be doing most of the work making the system a success, decides.
If there are no maintainers for competing proposals, the proposals that is likely to be maintained gets precedence.
20200821 <d: "hacc as ecosystem of people/groups"
### haccer seeks <RW
the wiki says it "was". stuebinm points me to a page which seems nice, but is not an open-edit page, which was one of the original points of hacc as far as i was present there.
<dcht00 : https://hacc.earth status unclear, not open editable, etc
RW agrees : https://matrix.to/#/!qlrgyDwETyYFjtuYTF:matrix.org/$1598060633372422Uepfl:matrix.org?via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de&via=fairydust.space
"seth told me hacc is ours"
d: I want CHT to be HACC. RW agrees.
[!→] (D) Strategy for Resolving different perspectives
I see, it's great you've expressed your position, thought it is quite different than mine.
What we need to make sure is that it does not dominate it.
Meaning, just because you (and perhaps everybody in Munich) believes there should be nothing like "protocols" because you like "chaos", does not mean that this is something that will make it most enabling to have a global/international orga.
So - I'm not trying to stonewall here, but trying to say that some of these thing will be a matter of different perspectives, with:
* some that can co-exist — and some that are incompatible
* some that can find a middle ground,
* some that will be resolved by trying, or maybe even by lot/chance ;-)
D: Meritocracy and merit-economics
* with different positions
* which are established to need to have a common way
* merit (within the current context) could be used to help resolving an impasse
* success or failure can be accounted in further cases
* X participated and pushed organisation of most succesful CCC events
* X has a special position in this matter, and can hedge it, if never "proven wrong" before
D: (SYSTEMATICS) Research: How to organize in general?
### find, link, study, and present learnings for this
### especially welcome are REAL past experiences with adopting systems
(Site generated by E2H, an "Etherpad hypermedia" project by @dcht00).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.