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 various group@opensourcedesign.net email forwarders #63

Closed
bnvk opened this Issue Mar 2, 2017 · 11 comments

Comments

6 participants
@bnvk
Member

bnvk commented Mar 2, 2017

Cases emerge where conversations regarding OSD start to happen in email channels, and these conversations stay in email channels amongst just the people initially involved. I would very much like to offer a way to loop others in that is efficient + privacy respecting such as group forwarders. Some suggested addresses are:

I can help you do this via various email services I'm familiar with. @jancborchardt you have access to the domain name, yes?

@jancborchardt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jancborchardt

jancborchardt Mar 2, 2017

Member

I would like to keep as many interactions in the open as possible, so I would say we should do this on a very specific case-by-case basis.

For example, can you list the reasons we need these handles? I understand conduct@ for reporting violations of the code of conduct, and events@ would be useful for contacting venues. Tasks and so-called »core« discussions should be public though if we want to grow our community. :)

Member

jancborchardt commented Mar 2, 2017

I would like to keep as many interactions in the open as possible, so I would say we should do this on a very specific case-by-case basis.

For example, can you list the reasons we need these handles? I understand conduct@ for reporting violations of the code of conduct, and events@ would be useful for contacting venues. Tasks and so-called »core« discussions should be public though if we want to grow our community. :)

@elioqoshi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@elioqoshi

elioqoshi Mar 2, 2017

Member

I do think we need some privacy when discussing things like working together with OSI or other "Open Design" groups as the topics can be quite controversial and missunderstood if not looped in right.

@BVNK @jancborchardt I think you know what cases I meant here as an example

Member

elioqoshi commented Mar 2, 2017

I do think we need some privacy when discussing things like working together with OSI or other "Open Design" groups as the topics can be quite controversial and missunderstood if not looped in right.

@BVNK @jancborchardt I think you know what cases I meant here as an example

@ei8fdb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ei8fdb

ei8fdb Mar 3, 2017

Member

Totally agree with @jancborchardt's points.

Yes email addresses/forwarders are useful for dealing with interactions with people/companies outside OSD, but I don't see why tasks and decisions can't be handled in a Kanban board/issues tracker.

All (most) of the work process stuff I do in the gov department I work at is held in a Trello board(s). People can then see whats there.

Member

ei8fdb commented Mar 3, 2017

Totally agree with @jancborchardt's points.

Yes email addresses/forwarders are useful for dealing with interactions with people/companies outside OSD, but I don't see why tasks and decisions can't be handled in a Kanban board/issues tracker.

All (most) of the work process stuff I do in the gov department I work at is held in a Trello board(s). People can then see whats there.

@elioqoshi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@elioqoshi

elioqoshi Mar 3, 2017

Member

Yes email addresses/forwarders are useful for dealing with interactions with people/companies outside OSD,

I think that's the use case Brennan described here.

Member

elioqoshi commented Mar 3, 2017

Yes email addresses/forwarders are useful for dealing with interactions with people/companies outside OSD,

I think that's the use case Brennan described here.

@evalica

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@evalica

evalica Mar 3, 2017

Member

I prefer doing things in the open and I don't think we need the above mailinglists.

Member

evalica commented Mar 3, 2017

I prefer doing things in the open and I don't think we need the above mailinglists.

@simonv3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simonv3

simonv3 Mar 3, 2017

Member

What if we had an e-mail address that automatically posted a github issue to a "contact" repo when it receives an e-mail?

Main concern there is spam, but if it's gmail it might be pretty good at filtering out the spam.

Member

simonv3 commented Mar 3, 2017

What if we had an e-mail address that automatically posted a github issue to a "contact" repo when it receives an e-mail?

Main concern there is spam, but if it's gmail it might be pretty good at filtering out the spam.

@elioqoshi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@elioqoshi

elioqoshi Mar 3, 2017

Member

I prefer doing things in the open and I don't think we need the above mailinglists.

I assume that doesn't mean that we are discussing this to close up some discussion? There is a fine line between transparency and privacy, especially for controversial topics which are related with relationships between people or even drama, which I'd rather not have on a public forum, frankly. And sometimes I get the feeling that a discussion might slip into that category.

I'd rather say that openness is like chocolate. It's great most of the time and there is always place for it. But sometimes it's not the right time and place for chocolate :)

Member

elioqoshi commented Mar 3, 2017

I prefer doing things in the open and I don't think we need the above mailinglists.

I assume that doesn't mean that we are discussing this to close up some discussion? There is a fine line between transparency and privacy, especially for controversial topics which are related with relationships between people or even drama, which I'd rather not have on a public forum, frankly. And sometimes I get the feeling that a discussion might slip into that category.

I'd rather say that openness is like chocolate. It's great most of the time and there is always place for it. But sometimes it's not the right time and place for chocolate :)

@bnvk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnvk

bnvk Apr 12, 2017

Member

Since core -at- opensourcedesign.net exists now, that is sufficient so closing (for now)!

Member

bnvk commented Apr 12, 2017

Since core -at- opensourcedesign.net exists now, that is sufficient so closing (for now)!

@bnvk bnvk closed this Apr 12, 2017

@jancborchardt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jancborchardt

jancborchardt Apr 13, 2017

Member

Since we are transparent about all our decisions, here’s the people currently being part of this core -at-opensourcedesign.net forwarder, and their Github handles. Next to it also the reasoning for their addition to this list, as reference and also to get to know each other more :) (let me know if I forgot anything)

  • Belen Barros Pena @belenbarrospena - co-starting this initiative, co-organizing the first FOSDEM Open Source Design rooms, setting up the job board form
  • Brennan Novak @bnvk - co-starting this initiative, setting up website, job board, and other infrastructure like chat.opensourcedesign.net
  • Charlie Kritschmar @Incabell - co-organizing the regular Berlin Open Source Design meetup, co-organizing the Open Source Design Summit Berlin
  • Ecaterina Moraru @evalica - organizing this years FOSDEM Open Source Design room, long-term involvement
  • Elio Qoshi @elioqoshi - pushing design quality in open source, co-organizing the Open Source Design Summit Berlin
  • Jan-Christoph Borchardt @jancborchardt (me) - co-starting this initiative, co-organizing the first FOSDEM Open Source Design rooms, setting up Github & Twitter & Open Collective, applying with FSFE & OSI
  • Jan Dittrich @jdittrich - co-organizing the regular Berlin Open Source Design meetup
  • Simon Vansintjan @simonv3 - work on the website, co-maintaining Github and Twitter accounts
  • Victoria Bondarchuk @victoria-bondarchuk - co-organizing the two FOSSASIA Design tracks

As per discussion on #63 this is strictly for stuff we can’t talk about in the open, which will occur very rarely. But some examples:

  • It helps reduce bottlenecks when someone of us gets sent an email which is about Open Source Design as a whole but not fit to discuss on the issue tracker:
    • When OSI sent me the note about changing the logo – although then we took it into the open, which made it properly documented and easy to understand.
    • When we have mail exchanges with other people in the general open source + design field about collaboration, involving a more diverse group can be conducive to discussion.
  • Code of Conduct violations.
  • Applying to the FSFE or OSI as affiliate / associate to have one main contact email address.

This is absolutely NOT for anything which belongs in the open. I expect us to use it only a few times a year. :)

Member

jancborchardt commented Apr 13, 2017

Since we are transparent about all our decisions, here’s the people currently being part of this core -at-opensourcedesign.net forwarder, and their Github handles. Next to it also the reasoning for their addition to this list, as reference and also to get to know each other more :) (let me know if I forgot anything)

  • Belen Barros Pena @belenbarrospena - co-starting this initiative, co-organizing the first FOSDEM Open Source Design rooms, setting up the job board form
  • Brennan Novak @bnvk - co-starting this initiative, setting up website, job board, and other infrastructure like chat.opensourcedesign.net
  • Charlie Kritschmar @Incabell - co-organizing the regular Berlin Open Source Design meetup, co-organizing the Open Source Design Summit Berlin
  • Ecaterina Moraru @evalica - organizing this years FOSDEM Open Source Design room, long-term involvement
  • Elio Qoshi @elioqoshi - pushing design quality in open source, co-organizing the Open Source Design Summit Berlin
  • Jan-Christoph Borchardt @jancborchardt (me) - co-starting this initiative, co-organizing the first FOSDEM Open Source Design rooms, setting up Github & Twitter & Open Collective, applying with FSFE & OSI
  • Jan Dittrich @jdittrich - co-organizing the regular Berlin Open Source Design meetup
  • Simon Vansintjan @simonv3 - work on the website, co-maintaining Github and Twitter accounts
  • Victoria Bondarchuk @victoria-bondarchuk - co-organizing the two FOSSASIA Design tracks

As per discussion on #63 this is strictly for stuff we can’t talk about in the open, which will occur very rarely. But some examples:

  • It helps reduce bottlenecks when someone of us gets sent an email which is about Open Source Design as a whole but not fit to discuss on the issue tracker:
    • When OSI sent me the note about changing the logo – although then we took it into the open, which made it properly documented and easy to understand.
    • When we have mail exchanges with other people in the general open source + design field about collaboration, involving a more diverse group can be conducive to discussion.
  • Code of Conduct violations.
  • Applying to the FSFE or OSI as affiliate / associate to have one main contact email address.

This is absolutely NOT for anything which belongs in the open. I expect us to use it only a few times a year. :)

@simonv3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simonv3

simonv3 Apr 13, 2017

Member

Should we list the above somewhere more publicly like on our website?

Member

simonv3 commented Apr 13, 2017

Should we list the above somewhere more publicly like on our website?

@jancborchardt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jancborchardt

jancborchardt Apr 17, 2017

Member

@simonv3 I think so, at least on the Code of Conduct report page. Otherwise I’d still prefer that we don’t refer that often to a »core« group except when necessary.

Member

jancborchardt commented Apr 17, 2017

@simonv3 I think so, at least on the Code of Conduct report page. Otherwise I’d still prefer that we don’t refer that often to a »core« group except when necessary.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment