A place for off-channel discussion and decisions around what's going on with the gitbook wiki's information architecture
I've fleshed out some more pages with some headings which I hope will spark debate about our section structure / information architecture (: Of particular note are the following:
Guiding questions, wherein I'm starting to braindump the "wicked problems" that have been on my mind when it comes to not just the product work, but also organisational design queries and problems I've seen over the years. What I'm hoping is that we can iterate this to a point where it can inform the...
External code of conduct, which would be the specific processes and guidelines (and guardrails) that keep us aligned to "good answers" to these guiding questions; and
Internal responsibilities, processes & procedures, which would follow a similar format for the internal governance rules and handbook.
I'd love to hear others' feedback on this kind of cross-referencing and inquiry-based design in the way we organise our information and develop our procedures.
@pospi I like the guiding questions as an open exploring space which can evolve into something more clear and shift elsewhere if it evolves sufficiently. And it makes sense to have the External Code of Conduct for how to align together (but is external the right framing there, can it just be Code of Conduct). And Responsibilities, process and procedure feels useful. With this external and internal terminology, I am wondering what the membrane is that makes it clear who is external and who is internal? Or what concerns are about the external v about the internal?
You are quite right- I have split it up; "Code of Conduct" now sits on its own, and I have added "External operating procedures" which is not wording that I particularly like but somewhat towards addressing "what kinds of content do we want and where do they go?"
RE membranes: good question. I suppose what we end up with is a code of conduct, perhaps even something as formal as a constitution if Economikit needs to have legal presence in places, eg. for license holding purposes. (That's a much bigger conversation that I don't care much about yet but if people want to start a thread about copyright holders that would be useful.)
Either way, acceptance of the protocol of this group should be all that is required to be considered "inside" the group for now, do you think? Open access is definitely something I want to aim for.
I started a page on "core beliefs" and put some words in it which I think are pretty OK but would definitely like to workshop with someone (: https://app.gitbook.com/@economikit/s/group-governance/strategic-direction/core-beliefs-and-principles