Loomio
Fri 8 Jun 2018 3:05PM

Should we buy a share in the Web Architects co-op to get access to git.coop?

NS Nick S Public Seen by 61

A proposal to this effect on the Tech Working Group closed yesterday (link here), and nominally passed (at least amongst those who responded):

  • 9 Agree
  • 4 Abstain
  • 1 Disagree
  • 35 undecided

In brief: the motivation is to get access to a GitLab instance with issue trackers, documentation tools etc., to coordinate setting up the various Ops Teams discussed in the main group here, here, here and here.

I think the process now is to move the proposal here for wider participation. I plan to do this shortly when I've redrafted it to summarise the outcome.

In the mean time, this is a thread to discuss the proposal, since voter comments in the proposal are limited in size. And if you saw the proposal and want to comment before I post it again, this is the place. :)

S

spudboy Fri 8 Jun 2018 9:07PM

I full agree, I'm ready to start moving over docs to their wiki (gitlab has like a sub-repo for wikis) and i can set up the gitlab bot in the matrix room

DS

Danyl Strype Sat 9 Jun 2018 5:27AM

I definitely like the idea of social.coop using a free code platform (not GH) for code management and documentation, and I like GL. There are arguments for hosting an instance on the same hosting as the Mastodon instance. But since there is already an instance run by a coop (and while the social.coop ops time are getting organised), using git.coop seems like a sensible solution, at least for now.

NS

Nick S Sat 9 Jun 2018 11:22PM

As mentioned here, which seemed an appropriate place to ask, I believe the finance working group also needs to be involved in this decision (because funds), and I'm wondering if I should put the proposal there, or here, or both...

My current inclination is to put it here and link to it in a parallel decision in the FWG, as I think we need the resource fairly urgently, to help to accomodate @victormatekole and @mayel's wish to hand over. Also, if I put it here, everyone in the FWG can see also it - otherwise just the FWG can see it.

Please comment if anyone thinks this is the wrong thing to do.

NS

Poll Created Sun 10 Jun 2018 4:27PM

Social.coop should join the Web Architects Co-op, in order to get access to the git.coop service Closed Sat 16 Jun 2018 6:02PM

Outcome
by Nick S Sun 17 Jun 2018 7:32PM

Seems to have passed.

Some abstainers asked questions - I hope these are dealt with in the comments? If not please remind me which points I missed.

@greg disagreed, I don't know if you might want to say more based on my answers to your questions (which came after your vote I believe)? @strypey suggested we should discuss your proposal.

@victormatekole didn't cast a vote this time, and @mayel abstained, both for unstated reasons. As key stakeholders in the matter, I invite you guys to clarify why you chose these options, since you need to be happy about this.

There's a parallel proposal in the finance group concerning how much to pay for a share in Web Architects, which currently split between the suggested £100, and £50 now then £50 later. I think I shall reopen that so that some more people can't contribute and push it one way or another.

Social.coop should join the Web Architects Co-op, in order to get access to the git.coop service

The use of Web Architects' service https://git.coop was originally proposed by @chriscroome, who is a member of social.coop and WebArchitects. WebArchitects is UK-based multistakeholder Co-op that provides this service to all members, for a minimum one-off stake of GBP £1, but a suggested stake of £100 for groups and £10 for individuals.

This proposal adapted from this proposal and this post.

The task organisation idea in 'Steps' is summarised from my suggestion in this thread here

There is a parallel decision asking for approval of the funds in the finance working group here

What is GitLab?

GitLab is a web-based project management tool, reviewed here, which Web Architects offer as a service to their members. GitLab (the software and the company) provides facilities similar to services provided by GitHub, but GitHub is a closed-source proprietary service (recently acquired by Microsoft) whereas the community-edition GitLab software we would be using is open-source.

Motivation

The motivation for this proposal is to facilitate organising social.coop's technical working group's activities (and potentially the other WGs'), from social.coop's main servers. We would use it for our up-front planning and documentation now, and later also for coordination.

As such I believe we don't want or need to defer this decision until after recruiting the ops team. I argue it makes sense to have such a tool because helps people to self-organise, and the work to branch out in parallel, rather than be constrained to linear steps.

Steps:

  1. If we get this tool, it facilitates us (specifically myself with help from @victormatekole @mayel and hopefully others) to:
    • Begin compiling one-off tasks in its issue tracker.
    • Begin compiling recurring tasks in its wiki.
    • Add outline/time/skill assessments. - Move our public GitHub social-cooperative account to private repositories in GitLab.
  2. We can then recruit people (voluntary or otherwise) with a clear remit based on skill/time matches to the above. They then:
    • Flesh out docs in the wiki, on the job.
    • Coordinate/prioritise work using the issue tracker.

Costs/Benefits

Cost/Cons:

  • A suggested UKP £100+ one-off membership share, exact amount to be agreed by the finance working group.
  • I'm told the CI facility at git.coop uses Debian Stretch as the base OS, so to use it our deployment images would need to be ported from Alpine Linux.
  • Various arguments about GitLab vs alternatives.

Benefts:

  • Git hosting (to store and track documents/code/configuration/text in an auditable and collaborative way).
  • Wikis/web pages (providing a user-friendly web interface for documentation stored as Markdown files in these Git repositories).
  • Issue tracking (for prioritising/allocating/discussing work).
  • Continuous Integration (for testing deployment/maintenance procedures without the risk of breaking the live services we provide).
  • Hosted independently of social.coop's live servers, and so a) not adding an additional admin burden, and b) still available when live servers are not.
  • Using open source software.
  • Executing co-operative principle 6 (collaboration between co-ops).

Outcome of the Tech WG proposal

The consensus amongst those who responded was broadly in favour, but with one notable exception: @victormatekole. However, he made this caveat:

> If making this subscription (Web Architects) and getting Gitlab
> going doesn't add extensive time to getting the team operational
> then by all means let's do it. At the same time I think those who
> are up for it should get involved, by doing.

So I hope we can simultaneously try and address @victormatekole's concerns by working on the schedule/to-do list as best we can.

An outstanding question about legal ownership of the share is discussed here and here, which seems to conclude it should be workable if joining the Institute of Organisations was.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 72.0% 18 DS JD NS ELP S RB MN D DB NP ED NS M GSF JB DM T JR
Abstain 28.0% 7 ST MK MDB M DU ID DU
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 76 RDB KF ST F CG GJ SH C G AM CCC AW MC TB SC PA SG JG IMS DP

25 of 101 people have participated (24%)

M

mike_hales
Abstain
Sun 10 Jun 2018 4:33PM

Sounds OK to me - but too tech for me to be sure, or to contribute to making it work.

DU
Vote removed
ST

Sam Toland
Abstain
Sun 10 Jun 2018 7:22PM

Support the proposal in principle - but can speak to the operational benefits of this.

Makes sense to me tools etc. to be driven by the people who are going to be doing/co-ordinating the work.

DU
Vote removed
DS

Danyl Strype
Abstain
Mon 11 Jun 2018 5:14AM

Someone has opened a discussio on their offer to host a social.coop instance of GitLab, which would avoid the need for image porting etc. I think it best to defer this decision pending the result of that discussion.

ST

Sam Toland
Abstain
Mon 11 Jun 2018 7:58AM

Support the proposal in principle - but can't speak to the operational benefits of this.

Makes sense to me that tools etc. be driven by the people who are going to be doing/co-ordinating the work.

Load More