Loomio
Mon 14 Aug 2017 10:27AM

Re-Launching the CTA - Proposal closes 19.08.17

OS Oli SB Public Seen by 81

I've made a proposal to re-launch the CTA over here https://www.loomio.org/p/B1aEHyc3/lets-re-launch-the-cta it's in an open group and I encourage anyone with an interest in the Open App Ecosystem to read the proposal and have your say.

The original members of this groups and the CTA group/s completed a huge amount of work on what the OAE is / should be and how to move towards it... I think we should be aiming to build on those foundations and re-invigorate this group and the rest of our collaborators :)

JL

James Lewis Mon 14 Aug 2017 10:56AM

Hi Oli and all,

Is there any write up or other materials produced from the the large amount of work that's been done before?

Other than broad visions, I'm unclear on specifically what OAE is doing, or what the group is for.

Thanks!

OS

Oli SB Mon 14 Aug 2017 11:02AM

Hi @mozboz
good question! Yes - lots, please see the references at the bottom of my proposal doc - I hope that helps?

Let me know if you need more detail. The latest OAE work is being discussed here https://www.loomio.org/g/exAKrBUp/open-app-ecosystem

BH

Bob Haugen Mon 14 Aug 2017 12:23PM

@olisb I'd be interested in what you think are the differences between the OAE and the CTA.

I see a couple of differences at least in emphasis between the OAE and the CTA, from the beginnings of each:
1. The OAE was never about platforms. One of the OAE slogans was "protocols, not platforms". The goal was many small apps and services that can work together. Platforms could use the apps and services, but it seems like a different goal.
2. The OAE seldom mentioned APIs. Several of the members focused on shared vocabularies instead.

We had recent discussion in a OAE-related Telegram group that includes some explanation of the differences between APIs and vocabularies for interoperability. I posted a copy in this OAE Loomio thread: https://www.loomio.org/d/C0V8UDqg/ecosystem-technical-architecture

Short version: if every app or service publishes its own API, a combinatorial explosion can ensue when some community wants to use many of them.

I am not opposed to APIs. They are important. And there's a dance between vocabularies and APIs, where the APIs will use the vocabularies, and both will influence each other.

But (for example) in that CTA re-launching document, all I see is API, nothing about vocabularies, and a lot about platforms. That's ok, if that's what you want. But it seems like a distinct set of differences.

OS

Oli SB Mon 14 Aug 2017 1:02PM

HI @bobhaugen
good questions :)

To me the differences are:

The CTA is about highlighting which groups are working on / towards collaborative technology - part of which is the OAE. It's objective is to show what is going on in the 'collaborative tech' space and to encourage participation

The OAE is about the development of: "The Open App Ecosystem": A suite of interoperable tools which support transparent, democratic, decentralised collaboration.

I don't think the CTA should exclude APIs or protocols or platforms

I understand your preference for protocols over platforms and APIs, and personally completely agree :)

I will add mentions of protocols and vocabs to the proposal doc

BH

Bob Haugen Mon 14 Aug 2017 2:00PM

@olisb I think that doc already mentions protocols, but not vocabularies.

That's a good point about groups that are working on technology for people to collaborate with each other. OAE was more about technologies collaborating with other technologies. The goal was to allow people in communities who use many technologies to be able to collaborate better.

So in this whole conversation, we have groups that develop technologies for people to collaborate with each other in various ways (Hylo, NRP, OCP, Communecter, Loomio), which at this stage tend to be monolithic platforms, and groups of people who want to collaborate with each other possibly using technologies (Sensorica, Fair Coop, Enspiral), and groups that are developing technologies and techniques for interop between the various technologies (OAE, ValueFlows).

Might have some other dimensions, too...

BH

Bob Haugen Mon 14 Aug 2017 2:04PM

One thing about the list of organizations to be invited: I could think of several others, as I think could several other people. The problem with such lists, as in the original CTA call, is it made people who were not listed think they were not part of the club. I do understand that such a list is also informational, gets across the idea of who is possibly working on something related. I wonder if you can find some language that gets the idea across but does not smell so "it's-our-club-and-you're-not-in-it"?

OS

Oli SB Mon 14 Aug 2017 3:32PM

"I wonder if you can find some language that gets the idea across but does not smell so "it's-our-club-and-you're-not-in-it"?"

Hopefully it doesn't smell of that too much!?? It would be an open club, free for anyone to join (as long as they agree to the principles and values).

The only official "members" of the CTA would be the people and orgs that officially "sign up" - but that doesn't stop the CTA listing all the other great and good projects that we love and respect and linking to them... and encouraging them to join too ;)

BH

Bob Haugen Mon 14 Aug 2017 3:50PM

@olisb

I don't think the CTA should exclude APIs or protocols or platforms

I agree, if it wasn't clear. But you might notice that while I have helped to develop some platforms (NRP, OCP, etc), and they are open source, I don't list them as candidates for an Open App Ecosystem. I did not start the OAE conversations, but I was around for the beginning, and there was always a strong reaction against monolithic systems (which those are), and I understand and am going with it.

Possibly part of the diff between OAE and CTA...?

LF

Lynn Foster Mon 14 Aug 2017 3:59PM

I did not start the OAE conversations, but I was around for the beginning, and there was always a strong reaction against monolithic systems (which those are), and I understand and am going with it.

Bob and I disagree a bit here. I think an OAE needs to be architected to support both. Too many monolithic platforms exist now, and they need to be made interoperable with each other and with smaller newer apps designed to be more peer-to-peer from the beginning.

BH

Bob Haugen Mon 14 Aug 2017 4:04PM

Nah, we don't actually disagree, I probably did not explain very well.

I agree that OAE (especially vocab and protocols) should be used by existing monolithic platforms. I just don't think OAE should create any new monolithic platforms. Ok?

Load More