HACC
aux proposals
Table of Contents
¶_[!] LIES: META/PROJECT— 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
→ https://extinctionrebellion.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/How-to-start-a-local-Extinction-Rebellion-group.pdf
It might be interesting to look into, and compare, orga models with for example XR.
See "How to start a local group"-document
→ https://extinctionrebellion.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/How-to-start-a-local-Extinction-Rebellion-group.pdf
¶_[~] ANON: META/PR— Change the name
This idea floated at the beginning, in first sessions ~35c3
→🔗hacc-naming-discussion
This idea floated at the beginning, in first sessions ~35c3
→🔗hacc-naming-discussion
¶ (take one)
The HACC website might want to follow a more "mainstream" page logic:
to increase readability for a bigger group
but without having to adapt the "supporting ad hoc groupations"-logic
Example of another order:
#) NEWS:
(blog like, page of the week, in the media, etc)
#) WORKGROUPS & PROJECTS
* notes index
#) CONTACT
* channels
* coordination proposals
#) ABOUT
* what
* directory
* local chapters
* start your own local chapter-manual
* ###
The HACC website might want to follow a more "mainstream" page logic:
to increase readability for a bigger group
but without having to adapt the "supporting ad hoc groupations"-logic
Example of another order:
#) NEWS:
(blog like, page of the week, in the media, etc)
#) WORKGROUPS & PROJECTS
* notes index
#) CONTACT
* channels
* coordination proposals
#) ABOUT
* what
* directory
* local chapters
* start your own local chapter-manual
* ###
¶ (take two)
______________________ "make a layered(?) website"
(what is the term for this layers of access in websites?)
FIRST LAYER
* have a (more) representational entry point, that shows ("displays"):
works,
conclusions of workgroups, etc
SECOND LAYER
* accessible via each of those more "conclussive pages" to the working documents
decisions made there "move upstream" to the first layer
______________________ "make a layered(?) website"
(what is the term for this layers of access in websites?)
FIRST LAYER
* have a (more) representational entry point, that shows ("displays"):
works,
conclusions of workgroups, etc
SECOND LAYER
* accessible via each of those more "conclussive pages" to the working documents
decisions made there "move upstream" to the first layer
¶[~] L: SITE— "Workgroups" seem to be mainly the meeting notes?
* make pages more alive by adding style, images
* if possible, show what really happened? (include photographs, locations, ...)
_______________
I can make proposals for this?:
* (minor) css adaptations
* find images online, quasi related just as illustrations
("Illuminations" work to make stuff readable)
* but perhaps also collect materials from earlier events
________
<<<dcht00:
"photos of people" is not hacker culture & IMO wouldn't really attract qualified people
there's other initatives for that
* make pages more alive by adding style, images
* if possible, show what really happened? (include photographs, locations, ...)
_______________
I can make proposals for this?:
* (minor) css adaptations
* find images online, quasi related just as illustrations
("Illuminations" work to make stuff readable)
* but perhaps also collect materials from earlier events
________
<<<dcht00:
"photos of people" is not hacker culture & IMO wouldn't really attract qualified people
there's other initatives for that
¶[DUP-!!] L: DIRECTORY— Define "BROADER HACC" use, as a label ("requirements for tagging work as HACC")
example:
some group of ecofarmers might want to tag their solar-powered farm as HACC work, without ever been engaged in a meeting during CCC
is that possible? <<<yes
How to invite such initiatives? <<< #todo
Specifically point to the "open-editable" part in the directory page, where this can happen?
example:
some group of ecofarmers might want to tag their solar-powered farm as HACC work, without ever been engaged in a meeting during CCC
is that possible? <<<yes
How to invite such initiatives? <<< #todo
Specifically point to the "open-editable" part in the directory page, where this can happen?
¶[/] L: CONSENSUS/PROPOSALS— Don't over bureaucretize... or at least not too soon
______
<<<dcht00:
I DISAGREE,
the lack of charter opened space for domineering and exclusion,
so the idea that a healthy culture will magically establish by itself was proved wrong
###cont on XXX🔗governance, used this as an anti-example
________
<<<L:
Its good to ready an organisation so stuff can actually happen,
but currently almost all "meta / organisational" proposals are coming from you
I know that is because it is your expertise, but the state of the website is pretty overwhelming, potentially scaring "do-ers" away
Also I know it is medium bound, meetings have to happen online, to be "globally inclusive", but lack the fluency / flow of the IRL meetings @CCC
And ofc "ppl generally" tend to not want to spend so much time writing or reading meeting reports
______
<<<dcht00:
I DISAGREE,
the lack of charter opened space for domineering and exclusion,
so the idea that a healthy culture will magically establish by itself was proved wrong
________
<<<L:
Its good to ready an organisation so stuff can actually happen,
but currently almost all "meta / organisational" proposals are coming from you
I know that is because it is your expertise, but the state of the website is pretty overwhelming, potentially scaring "do-ers" away
Also I know it is medium bound, meetings have to happen online, to be "globally inclusive", but lack the fluency / flow of the IRL meetings @CCC
And ofc "ppl generally" tend to not want to spend so much time writing or reading meeting reports
¶[DUP] L: WG/META— make a "meta workgroup"
collecting ppl specifically interested in setting up an organisation
[!→]
Example is the XR meta workgroup "on how to organize the movement"
ppl can subscribe to this group (after attending at least one (IRL) meeting)
That way the group has the self-evident mandate to make decissions
collecting ppl specifically interested in setting up an organisation
[!→]
Example is the XR meta workgroup "on how to organize the movement"
ppl can subscribe to this group (after attending at least one (IRL) meeting)
That way the group has the self-evident mandate to make decissions
¶[P/] L: DIRECTORY— Unclear difference between "a proposal" and a "project"?
<<<d:
project → directory
proposal → next
_______________________
(... or between /next VS /directory)
→ Like: if I want to add a "project proposal" where should I go?
Is it:
A) project proposals that are "accepted" move to the /directory?
(then that should be mentioned in the /next page as well)
B) /next is actually the "meta-workgroup" specific project proposal page?
C) a todo list with works that are already decided about / that "just need to happen"?
D) ###
<<<d:
project → directory
proposal → next
_______________________
(... or between /next VS /directory)
→ Like: if I want to add a "project proposal" where should I go?
Is it:
A) project proposals that are "accepted" move to the /directory?
(then that should be mentioned in the /next page as well)
B) /next is actually the "meta-workgroup" specific project proposal page?
C) a todo list with works that are already decided about / that "just need to happen"?
D) ###