Public Metamaps Chat Room(s)

I just realized I wasn't really considering allowing anonymous guests..... By at least requiring an email to be provided to log in, if not by one of the other options, I think we would eliminate a lot of spam and also get a name so we know who were are talking to (in theory)

Testing out a dedicated open chat channel could be a worthwhile experiment, but I wouldn't want to push it out right away as the new "hub" for our community. I think it has advantages for some people in some circumstances, worth testing to see who finds value in it. Rob do you want to do some research or suggest a specific initial implementation that would serve your vision / intention in this direction? Could be just an IRC room, such as famous uses: http://famo.us/help

Hopefully I can clear things up a bit, since I can't edit the proposal until it is has finished.

I used 'should' to describe that space of optionality between 'Could" and 'Must' (I don't personally think we would have much of a debate over whether we 'could', or 'must', create a public metamaps chat room(s) )

For other's confused about (what?) a public chat room might be, it is generally the combination of these 3 concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_chat (The online part was implied, sorry for that)

I tried to share the thinking/reasoning/intentions for my proposal... Is everything misunderstood? Should I start from scratch or are there specific bits that are most confusing?

The proposal, inside of this larger discussion, about Public Metamaps Chat Room(s), was meant to act as an initial survey. To see who thinks we should or shouldn't create such a chat room at all. (Hopefully 'should' is safe to use now) I gave some reasons for why I think we should, if you disagree with the proposal, please provide why you think we shouldn't.

Keep in mind though... The proposal is not yet about HOW we should do it (IRC, HipChat, Slack, MM itself, etc.), but instead, the question is "should we consider doing it at all?" The proposal is also not yet about: What is the best way to do it? how do we market it? How do we put it out there? How do we contextualize it? How do we request engagement?

To Ben's last discussion point... Before we even get to "testing" anything out, I made this proposal to see if we should do anything at all. I personally want to create such a chat room, the only reason I didn't just go and set something up, like an IRC or a Gitter, is because I wanted to see what others thought first. (Why this is my tendency is a whole other tangent to discuss)

Also, you said you see this as desiring to be our "new" community hub... I am unsure about what our CURRENT community hub is... and maybe that's a part of why I am making this proposal, because I don't feel we have a true hub yet.

As I said before, this proposal is about "Should we do it?" not, "How should we do it?"... Implementation can be figured out next... But yes, I have looked into the pro's and con's of different options. (Research)

Also Ben, could you please instead vote Abstain until you know what you are disagreeing with? Essentially your vote currently means that you think that we shouldn't create a public chat room for the greater Metamaps community/engagers, but you have not provided a reason for why you think we shouldn't (Whether its just a test, or something more serious)

Some final thoughts are that I am worried about inconsistencies in how we are using Loomio... The only reason I "agreed" to the latest Value Equation proposal on here was because I was setting my bar very low and leaving things in a "good enough for now" state, even while having plenty of issues with it... But with this proposal I am having to struggle with the definition, and personal connotations, of individual words/concepts like "should" and "chat room" just to get a simple initial proposal through... Are we only being agile and dynamically correcting flaws along the way for certain things? Why is this question about a potential MM chatroom more important that determining our distributions of funds?

Hey Rob, this convo goes to the heart of important considerations about how we can benefit from Loomio without getting bogged down in process, semantics, and process about semantics of process.

I feel it's important to be exceedingly clear in the formulation and statement of proposals here such that others can respond in straightforward binary fashion (with a slight gradient), without quibbling over word choice and intended meaning.

In this case, I really don't have a logical response to your proposal, and I would even say that it is not technically a proposal--what is the explicit action step to be taken if it goes forward? That makes a big difference as to how I respond. While I get a general, tentative gist of what you are suggesting we explore here, I disagree with the way that it is presented, especially that it is set up more as a conversation than a decision. Belongs in G+ dev at this stage, in my mind.

If I were to extrapolate to something that may make sense as a proposal along these lines, it would be for you to set out a specific app / space / strategy for spinning up a metamaps public chat as a trial, and asking for our consent to doing so with the metamaps name attached to it. Some additional details would serve of course.

I don't mean to be obstinate or needling, but this feels important to recognize and develop as good practice here to make good use of people's ability to engage with Loomio as a tool. It took me a while to figure out how to think about setting up proposal for the value equation...and it certainly wasn't perfect...we're learning. Let's keep that attitude and stay open, keep iterating. You can cancel this proposal and start fresh if you like.

so why not consider that we have an IRC channel that is open? which we do, at freenode: #metamaps (irc.freenode.net)?

i'd almost just build it into the metamaps platform, enable anonymous (but authenticated in some way) access. For instance, on the explore maps page, there could be a 'lobby' of sorts. then you could jump into a map chatroom. Otherwise I'm inclined just to ask people to join slack. that's what i see a lot of open source projects and communities doing these days.

do you have an example Rob of a community that does this in the way that you're envisioning?

I don't see why you are finding it hard to form a logical response to my proposal... I can say to myself "Yes. I agree... We should create a public MM chatroom, because __, _, _". If I thought it were a bad idea, or just not really worthwhile, I could say: "No. I disagree, we shouldn't create a public MM chatroom because _,_, __". Basically, the question is... After envision us creating a public MM chatroom, based on your current conception of what this means, do you think we should put the effort into actually making it happen, or not?

I think one common disconnect between us Ben is that I am frequently trying to engage others to create something WITH me (even if its just coming to an agreement on something), where you are frequently asking me to go off alone and come back with something more substantial to share.

I thought it best to put this proposal out there in stages so that minimal time/effort is wasted should this initial proposal not pass. For example, even though I have already done some research, why should I put more work into fleshing out more details if there is disagreement about whether we should create a public chatroom at all? Maybe some of us need to see the whole picture before agreeing that it is worthwhile, but maybe not... Finding that out is one reason for this proposal...

Here are the stages I was thinking of, for subsequent proposals, should this one go through... (I would be providing these subsequent proposals, others could too of course)

-Should we create a public Metamaps chat room?
If yes, determine the best solution/implementation through proposals

-If we can decide on an implementation, determine the best way to share/contextualize/invite others to this proposed new space.

-If we can agree on what we want to create, and how to share it.... Determine who is taking responsibility for doing what, and then do it! (It may also be that some implementation happens, for testing, before the proposal regarding how to invite others occurs)

For comparison, on some level we all must be in agreement that "we should create Metamaps" (or however else you want to word it so that it doesn't grind your gears), and that's why we are doing just that.... We aren't waiting for one of us to propose the grand unified theory of why Metamaps is a good idea, and how exactly to go about making it happen.

Ben, I would still like for you to explain why you think we shouldn't create a MM chatroom open to our general community/engagers.

Thanks for the input Ishan. The freenode thing you shared, which is also the basis of what Ben shared about Famous using, seems pretty good as a simple option for implementation since there is the option for anonymity (which is a nice feature)... and yet a recaptcha for authentication.

Given that many are jumping to how we could implement this idea, I have a general sense that most of us think this would be a good thing to offer.... and are in agreement with the first stage of the proposal, even though I worded it in such a way so as to limit some from wanting to respond with a binary yes/no or agree/disagree.....

I do not know of, or participate in, other communities that have an "always on/always available" public chat space to hang out in (in the way I am envisioning). I am sure there are plenty though.... Actually something like "Clan Chat" within a video game is something that seems very similar to this to me... Actually, we technically already have something very close to what I am envisioning in our HipChat.... its just not open or shared with everyone.... And having a button on our explore maps page, and in our other online spaces that links a person into our chat would be a great way to enable others to join.

The key for me is where does it put us to say "we should have a public chat room"? Is that now someone's job, or privilege; is it a license for someone to go and create whatever they think serves the purpose and then start making invitations to the user community? Is it then a priority agenda item that we need to address collectively and devote some design thinking and research to? Does it lead to a debate about whether X chat app is better than Y or existing forums / communities? So, for me the logical obstacle is that there are a bunch of interwoven considerations and implications which block me from responding coherently other than "non-affirmative". Perhaps abstain is the better marker for my stance, I'll reconsider here.

My assessment of the situation is that Rob you are asking:

a) do people feel that a dedicated public chat room could be advantageous at this time (i.e. it's worth exploring as an option)

b) does anyone else want to work with me (rob) on research, design, testing, implementation of such a solution if deemed desirable

c) what is the decision making process for determining how we implement, host, manage public community spaces and channels

I would like to take those one by one. The first step might benefit from an outline of what you are picturing as a solution, including the types of engagement, oversight, integration etc. envisioned.

The part of me that disagrees is coming from a place of concern around becoming too spread out between channels and spaces, such that an experiment with a public chat space winds up detracting from engagement elsewhere and yet is not ultimately sustainable as a communication venue...so the end result is a degree of disengagement and or confusion. That's a pessimistic view, but it's a concern that I have in response, not knowing more about what is being proposed.

1) I'm interested in investigating a chat room feature further. I'll agree with the proposal once I finish this comment. I may have 0 time to contribute to helping, but I agree with the proposal.

2) There are four classes of people with respect to metamaps:

i) The public
ii) "Followers": G+ Community followers, Twitter followers, blog subscribers, etc
iii) Metamaps Development community (a combination of the G+ group and github contributors)
iv) Loomio-type core contributors: Connor, Ishan, Devin, Marija, Rob, Ben, others?

For groups (iii) and (iv), there is a plethora of online chat things. I limit myself to email and G+. I respond to Loomio/Hipchat/Hackpad/Asana when I get emails about them, but only reluctantly :D. Others may be more engaged with these other platforms.

For group (ii), there's G+, Twitter, and the blog. Perhaps we should be syncing those well, but whatever. That seems pretty standard and not too onerous.

For group (i), there's... the Metamaps homepage. Connor has suggested updating this page to streamline things for them. That's great. I'll note too that this group really easily can slide into group (ii) currently, and also see our public persona via Twitter/G+/blogs. Accessing a community through these things is not super engaging but it's a nice way to learn more.

One of our goals is to move people from group (i) to group (ii), and others from group (ii) to group (iii) so they start contributing if interested. I say that creating and properly embedding a metamaps chatroom is a great way to make this happen.

Concerns:

If we embed an IRC (or honestly any other kind of) chatroom in our website, does that just feel empty and put people off? Will someone need to staff this chatroom? Maybe guiding people to G+ and Twitter is better. Maybe a Facebook group would catch a wider audience.