[HCoop-Discuss] The "Coop" aspect

[Steve Taylor]

docelic <docelic at mire.hcoop.net> writes:

> Stephen Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Co-op is first co-operative and second
>> technically adept.
>>
>> This co-op probable got going because
>> technically adept people formed a co-op.
>> Technical first,co-op > second.
>
> Well, we have to be practical here. Without
> skills, we could be just a bunch of "wannabees"
> that form a coop and then don't know what to do
> with it. I don't think HCoop would grow much more
> past the initial 4 members/founders if they were
> coop first, technical second. "Technical" here
> could mean law skills too - if Nathan was
> obviously coop first, "technical" second, we
> wouldn't trust him to do the serious work of HCoop
> incorporation and other legal matters that had to
> be done. Likewise, if Adam was "Ok, we are a coop
> now, life is good", that wouldn't lead to
> significant progress in any direction either.
>
> I'm not saying that I personally want to neglect
> the coop aspect, or that I encourage to do so. I'm
> saying that everyone fits a certain role within
> HCoop - the role each one of us chose based on
> necessity or their personal preferences - so it is
> only normal that, with time, you get to learn what
> kind of general input can be expected from each
> individual person.
>
> While I value technical and coop aspect equally
> high, I am largely tuned into the technical aspect
> now because that's where I see the work waiting to
> be done, because that's what I like doing at the
> moment, and because I do not feel there are any
> negative "trends" going on that are endangering
> the coop perspective and that would need special
> attention from me.

For some of these things I apologize to all. Some
are legitimate coop issues. Others are not. Leave
it at that.

Challenge: I'm also realizing/digesting this: each
person has their perspective/opinion on an issue;
that perspective can make it seem like all is good
or bad -- when an objective outsider could
neutrally assess the pros and cons of whatever.

In other words if we are convinced we are right we
may defend our conviction: but not adjust when
outside feedback says we should. I'm not talking
HCoop; I mean people in general.


> If you do feel that other
> subjects need to be discussed - that's excellent.
> Your posts can get that thread running in
> parallel. Sometimes this requires involvement from
> Board members; I hope the next elections with 5
> board members will add more coop-oriented people
> to our organizational structure, so no one will
> have an impression of their concerns being
> ignored.

About adding two new more board members:
what is their intended role? To spread the
sysadmin load, to market, to administer? Some of
that detail might get nominees.

Finding, working on constructive solutions, yes.

>> The lack of response (1) to my h-discuss e-mail
>> full of suggestions; some would make a better
>> co-op.
>
> I remember that email. Speaking for myself, it was
> good but targetted problems I did not perceive as
> serious enough to require attention there and
> then. (Again, increasing board members to 5 should
> help this problem).
>
> In any case, we often revisit old posts, so the
> lack of immediate replies doesn't mean anything.
> Even if you do not bring this post up again
> yourself, other members who appreciated it will.
>

Appreciated.

>
>> The wiki. To me, it's a brainstorming,
>> organzing, etc. tool. Response I got said it's
>> for technical data.
>
> Not only every member, but every person out there,
> being a member or not, can edit our Wiki.

Can I have delete access to the wiki?
Is that "MemberManual/CoopTasks" page a place to
ask for a few more interested wiki-gnomes?


> In any case, feel free to make improvements where
> needed (on the Wiki, in the mailing list welcome
> message etc.), and submit a bug through
> https://bugzilla.hcoop.net/ with notes of what
> sysadmins need to do to make your changes visible
> in places where you don't have write permission.
>
> Filing Bugzilla reports is great; they don't
> disappear, so any report that makes sense will
> receive attention sooner or later, and it'll be
> easier for everyone to point to the patch and
> accumulated discussion about it by pointing to
> bugzilla bug ID, rather than browsing mailing list
> archives. More work you do yourself, more towards
> the "sooner" side we'll move.

Great. Gotta study bugzilla, maybe cc some issue
bug to see it in action.

> Anyone can do any part of the work they like, and
> thus "promote" themselves to certain position.
>
> However, for tasks that require administrator
> privileges, we can't give access to many people,
> of which everyone would work on just a small
> subset.
>
> First of all, doing so increases the chances of
> our setup "breakage" many times, and second of
> all, person with sysadmin privileges focusing on
> just one or two specific things doesn't see how
> their work could affect other components. Finally,
> judging by the experience we had with this in the
> past, granting people only some privileged actions
> (enough to do their work), costs more of
> maintenance than if the admins just did the work
> themselves.

Re-state that please; separate wiki administration
from sysadmin stuff (I hope), because I don't have
sysadmin skills.

>> And get the IRC identities known

Now done.

>> - a voluntary departure (and arrival) survey of
>> going/coming members. What hooked/unhooked them.
>
> Great. I am not capable to offer any more
> organizational support other than what I've been
> doing already, which is asking members on their
> leave to tell us their specific reasons. The last
> 3 or 4 members who left did not care to reply.
> Other 2 or 3 before them shortly said HCoop was
> not what they expected. If you are willing to work
> on this, you can place yourself on the CC: list
> for Bugzilla bugs in the "Financial" category.
> There, as members submit account cancellation
> requests, you can send them an inquiry about it
> before their account is closed.
>
> I would not be surprised if, introducing yourself
> as a regular member, you had more success with it
> than I did.

More later. possible question list

>
> Thanks,
> -doc

--

I'll Followup later, constructively, on -
moderation

Thanks,

Steve