PLOTS Portrait

[gonzoearth]

a visual diagram of the PLOTS community - Jeff will draft and circulate for input

[jywarren]

OK, here's a draft, where i put in some examples, which maybe wouldn't be in the final?:

(link to Google doc: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1B0jkvNFpMGbmDHRl3NJQfBAgehbfnjBKwzRtOQ-HPPI/edit)

[swylie]

I think this looks amazing, my only question would be should there be a visual link between partner organizations? flow diagram arrows? Can they be on working groups?

second question could you make a similar diagram for the tool development tree? I'd love to be thinking with that too. This methods might be great to kickstart the working groups as it is easy to share concepts with images.....data rich ones :)

[jywarren]

OK, added arrows. Also two things which would be nice to explore, but which we might want to debate on the Team list:

• how does one enter these groups?
  • i.e. to enter the Public Lab community, does one have to contribute something on the website, or attend an event? or produce data?

[jywarren]

oh, also - i added a second set of arrows indicating that one major role of staff and organizers is to help facilitate relationships with partner orgs. I'm thinking of some activist groups and nonprofits which follow a slightly more traditional structure and don't know how to engage with a communal and nebulous open source group.

[ebarry]

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

[jywarren]

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text
below this that lists them like on
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner orgs
and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just
directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no? Maybe
just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works ?
(like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of
collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will
require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and
adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

[gonzoearth]

Looks great. I like it at /about or close by. Would it be weird to have a
box outside with a one way relationship out from PLOTS to
people/organizations outside of our targeted scope? This does not
necessarily mean the oil industry, but Google for example.

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text
below this that lists them like on
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner orgs
and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just
directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no? Maybe
just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works ?
(like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry <
reply@reply.github.com javascript:;

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of
collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will
require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and
adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

[jywarren]

hmm, maybe it's getting out of scope -- but mainly i worry that if we say
that, we should also add other outcomes we hope for, and then the diagram
becomes much larger -- see this list:
http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/outcomes

maybe that's a different page?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM, stewart long <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

Looks great. I like it at /about or close by. Would it be weird to have a
box outside with a one way relationship out from PLOTS to
people/organizations outside of our targeted scope? This does not
necessarily mean the oil industry, but Google for example.

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text
below this that lists them like on
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner
orgs
and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just
directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no?
Maybe
just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works ?
(like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry <
reply@reply.github.com javascript:;

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of
collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that
will
require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and
adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

[gonzoearth]

A separate outcomes page or diagram sounds good. Another idea to toss out
there; it is implied, but should we show some type of callout on the
diagram that people can join/start/begin with the big Public Laboratory
community bubble.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Jeffrey Warren <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

hmm, maybe it's getting out of scope -- but mainly i worry that if we say
that, we should also add other outcomes we hope for, and then the diagram
becomes much larger -- see this list:
http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/outcomes

maybe that's a different page?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM, stewart long <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

Looks great. I like it at /about or close by. Would it be weird to have a
box outside with a one way relationship out from PLOTS to
people/organizations outside of our targeted scope? This does not
necessarily mean the oil industry, but Google for example.

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text
below this that lists them like on
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner
orgs
and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just
directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no?
Maybe
just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works?
(like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry <
reply@reply.github.com javascript:;

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of
collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that
will
require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and
adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

[adamdgriffith]

Looks fantastic. I like not putting specific orgs on the first chart, but having a subsequent chart with more details. Maybe click on a bubble?

On Apr 23, 2012, at 6:47 PM, stewart longreply@reply.github.com wrote:

a visual diagram of the PLOTS community

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151

[jywarren]

OK, I think the latest version looks pretty good. Now where do we put it?

• http://publiclaboratory.org/about
• http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/getting-started
• http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/organizers

or it's own page?

[swylie]

I have been thinking that we could use these diagrams as ways of actually accessing information on the site. So for instance the tools page could actually be the tool development flow chart, each tool in process could be on the chart relevant to where it is on the process? I think this would help create more conversation between the tools that are in the same development stage.

Perhaps this concept is harder to apply to the overall structure diagram but it might be a good way to organize the "about" information? clicking in staff tells you about all the staff, clicking working groups tell you about all the working groups?

One immediate draw back of this approach is it moves away from the easily editable form of the wiki-pages to add this kind of graphical interface.

[adamdgriffith]

I think it could go on all three pages and should go on the about and
getting started pages.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeffrey Warren <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

OK, I think the latest version looks pretty good. Now where do we put it?

• http://publiclaboratory.org/about
• http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/getting-started
• http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/organizers

or it's own page?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

Adam Griffith
Director of Science and Coastal Environments
publiclaboratory.org
828.321.2326

[jywarren]

OK, it's on /about and /wiki/getting-started

how does that look?

[ebarry]

looks good!

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Warren <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

OK, it's on /about and /wiki/getting-started

how does that look?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry

[adamdgriffith]

looks great!

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Liz Barry <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

looks good!

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Warren <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

OK, it's on /about and /wiki/getting-started

how does that look?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#151 (comment)

Adam Griffith
Director of Science and Coastal Environments
publiclaboratory.org
828.321.2326

[jywarren]

closing