Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create manifesto.md #8

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
from
Open

Create manifesto.md #8

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@jameslibscie
Copy link
Member

jameslibscie commented Feb 12, 2020

I've made some of my own changes compared to the text in the Google Doc. You can find the original here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X9LwmujjuUuG__NIStf6PgnNcbNxqqTnFM1UPLkAavI/edit#

manifesto.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

In order to do so, we step in at the root.

We’ve made it our mission to create a grid following the principles of distributed ownership, setting a standard for building usable tools for cooperation, provenance, peer review and authorship, removing friction from your life as a researcher. We want you to decide what is important for your work.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@juliangruber

juliangruber Feb 12, 2020

Member

as discussed, grid needs to be further discussed

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jameslibscie

jameslibscie Feb 13, 2020

Author Member

How about framework?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@juliangruber

juliangruber Feb 13, 2020

Member

oh I like that, it's higher level!


In order to do so, we step in at the root.

We’ve made it our mission to create a grid following the principles of distributed ownership, setting a standard for building usable tools for cooperation, provenance, peer review and authorship, removing friction from your life as a researcher. We want you to decide what is important for your work.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@juliangruber

juliangruber Feb 12, 2020

Member

this sentence is a bit confusing with the many ,s and ands

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jameslibscie

jameslibscie Feb 13, 2020

Author Member

Made some adjustments. Let me know what you think

manifesto.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

psobrakseaton left a comment

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since we went over it last week.

I think this document is a beautiful statement of our current purpose (namely the creation of Hypergraph), but I don't think this accurately represents us as Liberate Science.

Our manifesto needs to be a guiding document stating our aims as the open worker co-op that is Liberate Science. Maybe our mission won't always be to create "tools for cooperation and peer review", but that is our mission right now with this specific tool.

Some things that will never change for Liberate Science:

  • An emphasis on diversity
  • A focus on accessibility and transparency
  • Communal ownership and profit sharing

I think we should use this current document as a very rough first draft and start over keeping in mind the collective mission of Liberate Science as an entity with Hypergraph as a flagship product that embodies our ideals.

Co-Authored-By: Julian Gruber <julian@juliangruber.com>
@jameslibscie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

jameslibscie commented Feb 18, 2020

I agree @psobrakseaton. Perhaps this manifesto makes more sense as a Hypergraph manifesto. I think it would be difficult and strange to combine our planned efforts towards science and work into one piece. I also split them out for the business plan.

I'm considering the context of the elevator pitch, which was the context we were using during the manifesto call. I imagine the degree to which Hypergraph and Liberate Science are relevant to a particular person will likely differ quite a bit. Some will only need to know about the product to be "sold", others only the organisation, but many (most?) probably a mix. I'm wondering how that relates to the manifesto as well. Should we create two or create one that we (in conversation) skew towards one end or the other, depending on our target group?


In order to do so, we step in at the root.

We’ve made it our mission to create a framework for distributed ownership of research. To achieve this, we're building a standard library of user friendly tools for cooperation, peer review and publication, while securing provenance and authorship. These tools we build for you, and we want you to decide what is important for your work.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jameslibscie

jameslibscie Feb 19, 2020

Author Member

How about this:

We’ve made it our mission to liberate science. To achieve this, we are creating a framework for distributed ownership of research and a library of user friendly tools for cooperation, peer review and publication. We ensure transparency and proof of provenance and authorship by design. These tools we build for you, so that you can focus on what you find the most important.

And an addition like:

As an organisation, we care about openness, inclusivity and health. We work out in the open, for all to see. We design products for all, not for some. We put people before work. Our aim is to create an open worker cooperative organisational model that changes perceptions of work through communal ownership.

Then the last part could be something like:

Even though we don’t know what the eventual outcome will be, we do firmly believe that taking science out of the hands of the few is the way forward. If we can even make a small difference, while ensuring our workers are well looked after, then we are succeeding.

Thoughts? :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.