Loomio
June 22nd, 2018 05:49

Place to dicuss the formation of the Tech Admin Ops Team proposal.

RB
Robert Benjamin Public Seen by 310

Put up a proposal after a round of poll feedback to facilitate the formation the Tech Admin Ops team. Open to feedback and adjustments to proposal as needed.

https://www.loomio.org/p/ubS15AHl/formation-of-the-initial-interim-tech-admin-ops-team

RB

Robert Benjamin started a proposal June 22nd, 2018 05:56

Formation of the initial/interim Tech Admin Ops Team Closed 10:03pm - Wednesday 27 Jun 2018

Outcome
by Robert Benjamin July 2nd, 2018 18:06

With the passage of the Initial/interim Tech Admin Ops Team Formation proposal Nomination/Voting polls for (2) Coordinators, (2) Critical Infrastructure Maintenance Developers, and (1-10) Project Developers
are now open!

https://www.loomio.org/d/e49bvwiA/place-to-dicuss-the-formation-of-the-tech-admin-ops-team-proposal-

With the recent passage of the Admin Ops Proposal the Tech Working Group is now empowered to set policy and form their Admin Ops Team.

In service of expedited transfer of critical coverage duties from current volunteers to an Ops Team this proposal officially forms the initial/interim Ops team and sets the minimal policy to run it with the expectation that it will be reviewed/revised as soon as is appropriate.

Initial/interm team positions: (2) Coordinators, (2) Critical infrastructure maintenance Developers, and a (1-10) Project Developer Pool

Policy:

Eligibility: Ops Team Members must be Social.Coop members in good standing.

Team member recruitment:

(A) An urgent (4) day recruitment check poll for each fo the positions (starting with the Coordinators) shall be created inside of the Tech Working Group and shared onto Social.Coop platform and Loomio.
(B) Where more members have volunteered than there is positions a Rank Choice poll inside TWG will be created with a (3) day voting window.
(C) All master admin access shall be handed over to the voted in Coordinators.
(D) Coordinators shall provide the initial Ops Team configuration and interface org chart to the Tech Working Group.

Policy:

Admin Access: Coordinators shall give/revoke team members admin access as they deem necessary.

Term: The term of the initial/interim team shall be no more than 6 months.

Reporting: After 2 weeks of the initial Ops Team Formation the Coordinators shall submit a progress report to the Tech Working Group. Thereafter process reports shall be given in 1 month increments.

Hours: Team members shall track and compile hours volunteered on a monthly basis (for use when/if a Tech Ops Team Remuneration policy is put in place and budgeted for.)

Review: Within 6 months of initial/interim Ops Team formation the Tech Working Group shall have reviewed/ratified the Ops Team policy including documentation, mutual education, equity/inclusion, and team member change out period .

Results
Block - 0
Disagree - 0
Abstain - 2
Agree - 9
11 people have voted (0%)
spudboy

spudboy
Agree
June 22nd, 2018 06:17

Ed Summers

Ed Summers
Agree
June 22nd, 2018 10:58

Edward L Platt

Edward L Platt
Abstain
June 22nd, 2018 14:57

I'm not sure what's being voted on here. The proposal mentions a poll, but I don't see one. What am I missing?

RB

Robert Benjamin June 22nd, 2018 17:21

@edwardlplatt the Polls will be created on the passage of the Proposal. What is being voted on is the creation of the Tech Admin Ops team by way of the process described in the proposal.

Matt Noyes

Matt Noyes
Agree
June 22nd, 2018 18:06

Thanks for moving us forward. Can I suggest as an approach (we can add/change language when we finish our Equity policy) that equity be a criterion in recruiting volunteers? I.e., instead of passively waiting for volunteers, reach out.

David Mynors

David Mynors
Agree
June 23rd, 2018 18:03

Matthew Cropp

Matthew Cropp
Agree
June 24th, 2018 20:17

GSF

Gil Scott Fitzgerald
Agree
June 27th, 2018 02:07

RB

Robert Benjamin
Agree
June 27th, 2018 06:01

Antoine-Frédéric Raquin

Antoine-Frédéric Raquin
Abstain
June 27th, 2018 18:37

So there's a consensus on "we won't maintain a snap"? If we would (maintain a snap) I suppose we'd require a different organization.

Liaizon Wakest

Liaizon Wakest
Agree
June 27th, 2018 20:44

all sounds good except "Admin Access: Coordinators shall give/revoke team members admin access as they deem necessary." sounds a little sketchy. maybe flush that one out a little more?

Darren

Darren
Agree
June 27th, 2018 23:45

Nick S

Nick S June 28th, 2018 10:02

Sorry for not voting. I procrastinated, since I was unsure how to respond to the poll with a simple overall yes/no answer to this, then missed the deadline (was in bed).

I want to agree but have unanswered questions about the scope, and what still needs to be done when we have elected the team place.

I'm a bit concerned that the new team will flounder without either clear guides and/or input from @victormatekole and @mayel, who seem to be unable to provide very much help currently. Perhaps we need to clarify what we can expect from them as part of this process, plus negotiate a way to get critical questions responded to when we really need that. Basically, how to help them help us.

Victor Matekole

Victor Matekole June 28th, 2018 12:42

I'm a bit concerned that the new team will flounder without either clear guides and/or input from @victormatekole and @mayel, who seem to be unable to provide very much help currently. Perhaps we need to clarify what we can expect from them as part of this process, plus negotiate a way to get critical questions responded to when we really need that. Basically, how to help them help us.

@mayel and I have given a tremendous amount of time and effort to this project, with no compensation (apart from a kind gesture from @matthewcropp where he personally sent me Faircoin), in fact, we have also given financially to this project too ...

We made it very clear on a call that everyone was invited to, but failed to turn up to (apart from @matthewcropp) that we could not lead the process of installing an operations team... We have both been cooperative and continue to give our time to critical matters.... I apologise if I have not participated in the multitude of polls and discussions but frankly I am totally confused as to how to engage in this process, from where I am standing there is a lot of noise coming from Loomio and there are other projects I'd like to engage with, that are suffering from my lack of attention as a result.

We are here to cooperate as best we can, it might not be to a level that some others may expect — @mayel and I do not have the time to write extensive documentation as some would like... I insist that what is being asked for in terms of documentation has been largely done by the Mastodon team... What remains is some context in the particulars of our deployment, happy to join a call and discuss these as we did with @erikmoeller5 some mths ago and I believe his feedback of the session was positive at the time.

Victor Matekole

Victor Matekole June 28th, 2018 12:45

Additionally, and as I have said previously.... Perhaps, the best course of action is to simply reset and do a new deployment as the new team sees appropriate... In this case I am sure there are enough of us with the skills and experience to do this. If not, perhaps we should rethink if we can run an instance ourselves.

Ed Summers

Ed Summers June 28th, 2018 13:49

From my perspective (just reading the docs) a lot of fine work has gone into setting up the social.coop Mastodon instance. I think it will be a good foundation to build on, and can be adjusted as needed as we move forward. I also think that now we are set up to fill the various roles that have been identified, we can move forward with (hopefully) our first task -- coming up with a process for upgrading the Mastodon instance!

Nick S

Nick S June 28th, 2018 15:44

Victor, my apologies if I gave that impression, but by no means do I wish to belittle what you and Mayel have already put in, or to express any form of ingratitude!

I can't comment on that call you mention everyone was invited to - possibly that was before or early on in my readings of the Loomio group.

I hope you'd agree, we outsiders cannot infer the processes required easily (and just as importantly, safely) just by looking at the servers, there are too many unwritten assumptions to negotiate.

Firstly, I don't really want to have to discover the truth by poking around on the server and guessing. These are productions servers, and expecting me to do this is really as much a waste of my (also somewhat valuable) time as it would be to expect you to write large amounts of documentation.

It's not enough just to say everything is following "standard procedures" - you need to say which document you mean, and give indications where, if anywhere, our servers deviate from it.

I don't think we can easily just start over - we're not setting up a fresh new Mastodon instance any more, there are users and data to respect.

So we need some sort of a compromise.

Of course I don't expect you to write extensive docs (as nice as that would be). I hope that could be done by the incoming team. I will do some of it myself if I can gather the information and get some feedback on how correct I am.

To achieve this, during the hand-over period we will need to be able to ask questions, and get answers of some sort (perhaps this will be "don't know" or "ask so and so"), or at least know if or when we can't do this and have to guess. I think the problem with Loomio is that questions asked here get buried and don't get answered. For instance this and this are two of mine.

Perhaps we need a forum which is quieter and more discreet to ask in, so that we can avoid you needing to deal with long Loomio threads quite so much. GitLab might work for that, when I can get it procured (I'm blocked on this here).

I'm not sure if audio/video calls are very suitable since we are all in different time zones and have different commitments. I suggest something asynchronous is more likely to work out.

For now I'll probably use email as you suggest.

Victor Matekole

Victor Matekole June 28th, 2018 16:02

I don't think we can easily just start over - we're not setting up a fresh new Mastodon instance any more, there are users and data to respect.

Strongly disagree, I came into this project where Mayel had a more conventional deployment and I decided to migrate it on fresh instance(s) into a Docker swarm cluster and decouple how user-generated content was stored and distributed... I did this by myself and it was a considerably more complex and longer process than you will most likely meet ...

Anyone with Postgres skills can easily restore the database, all user-generated content is decoupled from the instances as it stored at DreamObjects and delivered by Fastly... I would be very surprised if a fresh instance could not be deployed using Mastodon documentation and existing data being restored, without too many hoops to jump through.

Nick S

Nick S June 28th, 2018 16:40

I think this is much easier for you to say with all the hindsight you have :) I would simply not have known this.

Victor Matekole

Victor Matekole June 28th, 2018 16:47

I wouldn't suggest one recommend anything unless the person thought it reasonable and viable — twice I have recommended this, with no caveat... On this occasion I have been more descriptive.

RB

Robert Benjamin June 28th, 2018 23:00

Thank you @victormatekole and @wulee for engaging on this. One of most difficult things right now seems to get the kind of engagement required to move something forward as complex and critical as a transition from a legacy dev group to a hopefully sustainable team structure. All the while having that conversation continually buried under other a ton of other activity.

One of the reasons I have been pushing for a formalization of the process is so that volunteers contributing to the platforms operations will be empowered to do what needs to be done within a clearly laid scope of work and established level of group over-site and input.

Once the Coordinators officially take on their roles I'm hopefully the process produce less frustrations.

On a side note; From my vantage I don't believe that your (@victormatekole) or @mayel lengthy contributions have been properly recognized. No doubt the organization wasn't in a form to do so piror and I'm not exactly sure what should or could be done about it now but it is something that I do believe would be right to do so.

RB

Robert Benjamin started a poll July 2nd, 2018 17:40

Tech Admin Ops Team Coordinators - Nominations and Voting (3 of 3) Closed 10:02am - Monday 16 Jul 2018

Outcome
by Robert Benjamin July 25th, 2018 15:36

Congratulations and thank you to @wulee for stepping up and being voted in as Coordinator of the initial Social.Coop Tech Admin Ops Team.

You can support the volunteer team in their efforts by joining and engaging at the policy and proposal level on the Tech Working Group.

For those interested in potentially joining the Teach Ops Team look for future announcements to fill open positions.

A poll to both gather nominations and to vote to fill two (2) open Coordinator positions on the initial/interim Tech Admin Ops Teams as specified in the previously passed proposal.

To nominate yourself please add your name as an option and a short statement to pertinent skill set and availability. The window for nominations is open for four (4) days of this poll (may be extended if a minimum of (2) nominees are not received.)

To Vote choose one or two nominees. The main voting period is set for the last three (3) days of the poll.

The two (2) nominees with the most votes at the end of the poll will fill the open positions.

Position Title: Tech Admin Ops Team Coordinator
Position Description: Maintain and administer development and hosting access. Coordinate needed proposals inside Tech WG to kick off work not covered by an established policy or previous proposal. Coordinate, document, and report on team activities.
Time Commitment: Unknown
Initial Term: 6 Months
Qualifications: Organized. Good Communication. General knowledge of development or technology used.
Eligibility: A member of Social.Coop in good standing.
*Remuneration: * Volunteer position. Track hours to split limited monthly remuneration pool amongst team members (pending Remuneration Budget Proposal).

INCLUSION NOTE: Although Tech Admin Ops Team positions may require some degree of pre-existing specialized knowledge, for which individual members may use as their criteria when casting their vote, roles may also be considered "learning" opportunities, for which any member (regardless of skill level or background) with enthusiasm to take part is welcomed to apply.

Poll Note: 1st time using a poll this way. Will monitor for any issues that may arise.

9 - Nick S (@wulee)
RB

Robert Benjamin started a poll July 2nd, 2018 17:52

Critical Infrastructure Maintenance Developers - Nominations and Voting (2 of 3) Closed 10:02am - Monday 16 Jul 2018

A poll to both gather nominations and to vote to fill two (2) open Critical Infrastructure Maintenance Developer positions on the initial/interim Tech Admin Ops Teams as specified in the previously passed proposal.

To nominate yourself please add your name as an option and a short statement to pertinent skill set and availability. The window for nominations is open for four (4) days of this poll (may be extended if a minimum of (2) nominees are not received.)

To Vote choose one or two nominees. The main voting period is set for the last three (3) days of the poll.

The two (2) nominees with the most votes at the end of the poll will fill the open positions.

Position Title: Critical Infrastructure Maintenance Developer
Position Description: Maintain and keep up to date critical infrastructure.
Time Commitment: Unknown
Initial Term: 6 Months
Qualifications: Working knowledge of development or technology used.
Eligibility: A member of Social.Coop in good standing.
*Remuneration: * Volunteer position. Track hours to split limited monthly remuneration pool amongst team members (pending Remuneration Budget Proposal).

INCLUSION NOTE: Although Tech Admin Ops Team positions may require some degree of pre-existing specialized knowledge, for which individual members may use as their criteria when casting their vote, roles may also be considered "learning" opportunities, for which any member (regardless of skill level or background) with enthusiasm to take part is welcomed to apply.

Poll Note: 1st time using a poll this way. Will monitor for any issues that may arise.

7 - Ed P (@elplatt)
7 - Nick S/WuLee
RB

Robert Benjamin started a poll July 2nd, 2018 18:00

Project Developers - Nominations and Voting (1 of 3) Closed 10:02am - Wednesday 18 Jul 2018

A poll to both gather nominations and to vote to fill 1-10 open Project Developer positions on the initial/interim Tech Admin Ops Teams as specified in the previously passed proposal.

To nominate yourself please add your name as an option and a short statement to pertinent skill set and availability. The window for nominations is open for four (4) days of this poll (may be extended if a minimum of two (2) nominees is not received.)

To Vote choose 1-10 nominees. The main voting period is set for the last three (3) days of the poll.

The ten (10) nominees with the most votes at the end of the poll will fill the open positions.

Position Title: Project Developer
Position Description: Assist in Social.Coop development as determined by the Tech Admin Ops Team Coordinators.
Time Commitment: Unknown
Initial Term: 6 Months
Qualifications: Learning knowledge of development or technology used.
Eligibility: A member of Social.Coop in good standing.
*Remuneration: * Volunteer position. Track hours to split limited monthly remuneration pool amongst team members (pending Remuneration Budget Proposal).

INCLUSION NOTE: Although Tech Admin Ops Team positions may require some degree of pre-existing specialized knowledge, for which individual members may use as their criteria when casting their vote, roles may also be considered "learning" opportunities, for which any member (regardless of skill level or background) with enthusiasm to take part is welcomed to apply.

Poll Note: 1st time using a poll this way. Will monitor for any issues that may arise.

7 - GilScottFitzgerald (@gilscottfitzgerald)
6 - Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
3 - Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
6 - Ed Summers
RB

Robert Benjamin July 3rd, 2018 17:10

@wulee are open to being nominated for the Coordinator position? @matthewcropp nominated you for the Infrastrucrue position as well. There is nothing that says a member can't hold 2 positions if necessary either way the are both key.

@matthewcropp any ideas on how to get the word out on this. The response has been low so far and not sure many are seeing it.

RB

Robert Benjamin July 3rd, 2018 17:27

CC'ng those that previously expressed interest (on @mayel poll) in joining the Tech Admin Ops Team. Nominations are open for (2) Coordinators (2) Critical Infrastructure Maintenance Developers (1-10) Project Developers -

There are 4 critical position to fill and a per project crew which would be a great place for those wanting to learn/teach with less responsiblity. If you can't commit please reach out to any other member you think would like to be a part of the team.

@gregcerna @michelslm @dp @stevehanson1 @christinahendricks @jeremyapthorp @robin012 @karlschultheisz @strypey @aaronwagener @h @dixongexpat @fardog @bilbono @edwardlplatt @idmyn @wakest @christianbundy @jankoscielniak

Edward L Platt

Edward L Platt July 3rd, 2018 19:06

I have the time and skill to help out, but I have to admit, I've lost track of what's going on amongst all the messages. How do I express interest in a position?

Nick S

Nick S July 3rd, 2018 21:26

Broadly yes, I think I will have time and skills to spare. As I said, I'll see what I can do.

RB

Robert Benjamin July 4th, 2018 00:31

Excellent. Just add your self as an option to one or more of the 3 open positions in the Polls on the right.

Ed Summers

Ed Summers July 7th, 2018 10:29

I am interested in contributing as one of the project developers. I have worked as a software developer (mostly web) for the last 20 years, and have also spent much of that time administering Linux systems in the process. I have some experience with Docker and Ruby software stacks which could be useful for the social.coop Mastodon deployment. Generally I think what social.coop. I would like to learn more about how platform cooperatives do their work and would be able to work about 5 hours per week since I have a full time job and am also a PhD student (studying web archives).

Nick S

Nick S July 7th, 2018 17:45

Just a thought, maybe the roles we advertise and the roles on this list of jobs to do should be matched up:

https://github.com/wu-lee/social-coop-docs/blob/wip/jobs.org

My intention there was to keep things as simple as possible, but split things in terms of general skill level/admin access required. i.e. A small number of people with rare skill-sets / access to sensitive places, and a larger number of people who can help without needing those.

Not sure exactly how this goes, perhaps:
- Critical Infrastructure admin dev/coordinators = server admin/dev
- Project developers = web admin/dev

In my scheme, the four main roles are a multipilcation of
- "admin" means "needs admin role/password" and
- "dev" means "doesn't need admin role".
vs
- "server" means needs an ssh account on the servers, and
- "web" means needs an account on some software (e.g. Mastodon, GitLab)

I'm also thinking that a lot of the early work will be researching and documenting the jobs/processes fully, so the know-how can be picked up by newcomers easily.

Comments welcome.

RB

Robert Benjamin July 7th, 2018 20:55

That makes sense. So kinds of the things would a "web developer" be working on?

Erik Moeller

Erik Moeller July 7th, 2018 21:13

Nick S/WuLee
Erik Moeller

Erik Moeller July 7th, 2018 21:14

Nick S (@wulee)
Erik Moeller

Erik Moeller July 7th, 2018 21:21

Ed Summers
Erik Moeller

Erik Moeller July 7th, 2018 21:22

Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S/WuLee
Nick S

Nick S July 7th, 2018 21:51

Weeeell "developer" isn't the right term to be frank. In retrospect. What I mean is someone who could administer/config GUI apps like Drupal, WordPress, and I suppose, Mastodon. (i.e. minimal Linux CLI know-how required.) "Web administrator"?

fardog

fardog July 9th, 2018 14:13

Hey y'all; I'm one of the folks that helped get mastodon running again a few days back and I'm definitely down to help out, but I find Loomio pretty exhausting so I don't participate here much. It's really difficult to figure out what's going on.

That said, I'm willing to act as a stand-in for a maintenance developer, but my time's often very limited so I'm hesitant to throw my name on the poll as I feel like I'd be committing to something where I'm unlikely to hold up my end of the commitment. If folks can deal with me being somewhat absentee though, I can definitely throw in my tech skills when I'm available.

Nick S

Nick S July 11th, 2018 17:32

Wasn't there a poll a while back in which people could say that they might be able to help out? (I looked a while back, couldn't find it, maybe someone else knows the link.)

RB

Robert Benjamin July 11th, 2018 17:46

RB

Robert Benjamin July 11th, 2018 17:46

Ed Summers
RB

Robert Benjamin July 11th, 2018 17:47

RB

Robert Benjamin July 11th, 2018 17:47

RB

Robert Benjamin July 11th, 2018 17:52

It was here. I invited all the members who answered yes. So far the participation has been low. I'm assuming many people are not checking Loomio often or are bogged down with notifications. We should push forward with a skeleton team and look for a ways to engage the larger group to add to the team. This

https://www.loomio.org/p/ytmeUYcD/i-have-at-least-some-skills-time-interest-to-join-the-tech-ops-team-?group_key=ibncxoDR&status=closed

RB

Robert Benjamin July 11th, 2018 17:55

Great @fardog how about adding your self as an option to project developer poll which will get you as part of the team but not the primary maintenance developer.

fardog

fardog July 11th, 2018 21:25

done

Jeremy Apthorp

Jeremy Apthorp July 11th, 2018 21:26

I'm happy to help out on project development occasionally. Loomio is confusing and i'm not sure what's being voted on here though :S

Jeremy Apthorp

Jeremy Apthorp July 11th, 2018 21:28

Ohhh, I see, the polls on the right are polls we can add ourselves to & vote in. got it.

Karl Schultheisz

Karl Schultheisz July 11th, 2018 21:41

Ed Summers
RB

Robert Benjamin July 12th, 2018 07:24

Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
Ed Summers
RB

Robert Benjamin July 12th, 2018 07:25

Nick S (@wulee)
RB

Robert Benjamin July 12th, 2018 07:26

Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S/WuLee
Graham

Graham July 12th, 2018 09:46

Graham

Graham July 12th, 2018 09:46

Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
Ed Summers
Graham

Graham July 12th, 2018 09:47

Graham

Graham July 12th, 2018 09:48

Ed Summers

Ed Summers July 12th, 2018 12:32

Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)

I didn't vote for myself :-)

Ed Summers

Ed Summers July 12th, 2018 12:33

Nick S (@wulee)
Ed Summers

Ed Summers July 12th, 2018 12:39

I hope it's not too late to nominate @victormatekole. I think it will be good to have his participation, if he is willing, since (I think) he has had a significant role in the setup & maintenance to date.

Ed Summers

Ed Summers July 12th, 2018 12:39

Oh I see people can no longer be nominated since the voting is underway. Nevermind then.

DU

[deactivated account] July 14th, 2018 06:13

Nick S (@wulee)

I wish I had any useful tech skills to help. Really all I have is WordPress. But I hope there are more who can help out and are willing!

DU

[deactivated account] July 14th, 2018 06:15

Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
Ed Summers
DU

[deactivated account] July 14th, 2018 06:17

Nick S/WuLee
DU

[deactivated account] July 14th, 2018 06:18

Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S/WuLee
RB

Robert Benjamin July 14th, 2018 17:36

It is not really too late. It's pretty open process and at this moment we don't have more nominees than there are positions available in any of the categories. Having @victormatekole as part of the team would be amazing but as he hasn't engaged thus far in the team formation process my assumption is he doesn't have interest or time beyond the feedback and direction on some configuration questions @wulee posted.

RB

Robert Benjamin July 14th, 2018 17:40

@graham2 it looks like you voted "none fo the above" for Polls 2 and 3? Is that an error? If not did you want to nominate someone? The Tech coordinator position still needs an additional nominee as there are 2 open postions.

David Mynors

David Mynors July 15th, 2018 09:15

Nick S (@wulee)
Graham

Graham July 15th, 2018 12:26

Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S/WuLee
Graham

Graham July 15th, 2018 12:26

Nick S (@wulee)
Graham

Graham July 15th, 2018 12:27

Thanks for the heads-up. Ive now changed those votes. It's just the crap UI.

GSF

Gil Scott Fitzgerald July 15th, 2018 16:17

Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S/WuLee
GSF

Gil Scott Fitzgerald July 15th, 2018 16:31

Nick S (@wulee)
Nick S

Nick S July 15th, 2018 19:59

Nick S/WuLee
Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S

Nick S July 15th, 2018 19:59

Nick S (@wulee)
Nick S

Nick S July 15th, 2018 19:59

GilScottFitzgerald (@gilscottfitzgerald)
Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
Ed Summers
Nick S

Nick S July 15th, 2018 20:09

Thanks to @robertbenjamin for setting this up and taking on a lot of this organising.

I confess to being hesitant to nominate myself or anyone else, perhaps other people are too (luckily someone else nominated me for me).

I can't help feeling we might as well just gather all the self-selected volunteers we can get - there's not that many, and at the moment we don't really know each other or our skills and preferences. The business of nominating and voting for other people might make more sense further down the line, but at this point feels arbitrary, because I haven't any criteria to make a choice with, apart from wondering if I should vote for myself or not.

muninn

muninn July 15th, 2018 21:15

Nick S (@wulee)
muninn

muninn July 15th, 2018 21:16

Ed P (@elplatt)
Nick S/WuLee
muninn

muninn July 15th, 2018 21:29

Agree with this - maybe just setting up a chat somewhere (where it can be recorded for posterity) and getting on with it. The complex and inscrutable machinations of Loomio are clearly enough to cause plenty of confusion and are almost certainly keeping people less engaged, IMNSHO. That's not to say doing all this was a bad idea, but the low response and sheer number of "how does this thing even work / this is exhausting" about Loomio are telling. Streamlining things until we really need all the functionality might be a good thing.

Nick S

Nick S July 15th, 2018 21:44

To be fair I do think Loomio has its place - there are times when polls and checks etc. are needed. And as a forum it's not bad (and not Facebook.)

My experience of taking the git.coop proposal through the tech WG and then the main WG and then the finance WG, possibly not quite in the right order left me wondering if the effort was justified, and if i wasn't just annoying people by asking basically the same question in slightly different circles.

In retrospect I was wondering if it might work better for social.coop to grant working groups some budget and then allow them exercise autonomy within that limit (perhaps with internal votes where it's considered appropriate). There would still be accountability to the main group if it looks like funds are being misallocated.

RB

Robert Benjamin July 16th, 2018 05:10

GilScottFitzgerald (@gilscottfitzgerald)
Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
Ed Summers
RB

Robert Benjamin July 16th, 2018 06:02

Thank you @wulee for putting in the work you have already and ultimately stepping up.

Although I would have hoped for much higher engagement (on something as important as how the instance is to be technically kept alive) I still see what we have accomplished so as a huge win. It looks like we now have 6 fresh volunteers as part of the initial Tech Ops Team where before there were only 2 volunteers at the tail end of their bandwidth.

The voting process was important to solidify the team approach. Where we take it from here will depend on the needs. Having a coordinator(s) to look to for guidance and direction will be a huge help.

Yeah @muninn the minutia of Loomio governance aside the Techy aspect of this proposal was a big hurdle of engagement its self. All the more reason we have a structure that is both empowered and accountable that can both handle and communicate the tech needs of instance.

@wulee on budgeting the next big endeavor I'm going to working on is a allocations based budget proposal that could begin to anticipate and address the budgeting needs of the different Ops teams starting with the most critical (Tech). I laid some groundwork for this a couple months back but will now need to spin out a more focused proposal to run through the collective GOVERNANCE GAUNTLET.

Victor Matekole

Victor Matekole July 16th, 2018 11:22

@wulee Thanks for the many "nudges", quite flattering. I have thought long an hard about being part of the team. Unfortunately, I have to decline ... A large part of me wants to be involved in this new structure, especially as there wasn't before. However, I have other quite important ambitions/projects that have taken a sideline and if I am to be serious about them I need to cutback on my volunteering. That being said, I will always be available for consultation or to jump in for emergencies during transition.

Matthew Cropp

Matthew Cropp July 17th, 2018 01:20

GilScottFitzgerald (@gilscottfitzgerald)
Jeremy Apthorp (@nornagon)
Nathan Wittstock (@fardog)
Ed Summers
Tao

Tao August 21st, 2018 00:01

hi all - has there been a formal handover to the new tech admin ops team? regardless, and if it's not too late, i would be happy to help out. i've done a bunch of sysadmin/ops work at my job, and as of friday i'm unemployed so i'll have time for this.

is it fair if i start a yes/no poll here for me to join the ops team? i figure that an extra pair of hands now > waiting 6 months for the next vote, but i don't want to go too far outside the standard process.

Nick S

Nick S August 21st, 2018 10:40

Currently you just ask and we rubber-stamp you in :)

Which I've done. However, this touches on a topic @mayel and I were discussing, of how careful we need to be with the tech working group, as even carelessness in the wrong place can make big problems for the co-op as a whole.

However, being able to access our tech group in git.coop just means you can read the documentation/issues and contribute there. It doesn't get you root access to the servers, for example! We need to figure out a workable solution to allow people to contribute (we need the help!) whilst not putting our users' data at risk.

I've been meaning to create another thread to discuss this, but I'm at work today and have already spent a couple of hours on social.coop administrivia, and there's a risk of overwhelming our readers if I create too much traffic, so this should probably wait a until later today at least. :)