Matthew Senate | 1 May 09:37 2012
Picon

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):

1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives. Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals. Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement. Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!

The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)

The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks, communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki, which can then feedback into further work.

(Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)

2. Github
Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github account?

freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture is available.

I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org domain?

Repos to create:

FreeCulture.org Wiki
FreeCulture.org Site
FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful for consolidation purposes.

// Matt

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com> wrote:
As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host don't concern me too much.

Github is nice though!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>
>> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because it's
>> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>
> I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch) just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>
> * Better bandwidth
> * More installed user base
> * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>
> Full conversation here:
>
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>
> Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>
> -- Asheesh.
> _______________________________________________
> Webteam mailing list
> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
_______________________________________________
Webteam mailing list
Webteam <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
Matthew Senate | 1 May 09:39 2012
Picon

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

Of course I forgot the attachment...

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):

1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives. Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals. Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement. Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!

The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)

The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks, communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki, which can then feedback into further work.

(Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)

2. Github
Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github account?

freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture is available.

I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org domain?

Repos to create:

FreeCulture.org Wiki
FreeCulture.org Site
FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful for consolidation purposes.

// Matt


On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com> wrote:
As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host don't concern me too much.

Github is nice though!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>
>> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because it's
>> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>
> I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch) just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>
> * Better bandwidth
> * More installed user base
> * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>
> Full conversation here:
>
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>
> Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>
> -- Asheesh.
> _______________________________________________
> Webteam mailing list
> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
_______________________________________________
Webteam mailing list
Webteam <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
Joshua Gay | 1 May 13:56 2012
Picon

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

Use gitorious instead of github. You give-up a few nice features, but you gain the satisfaction of
supporting a company and community that values free cultural works and free software.

Matthew Senate <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some
>feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):
>
>*1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
>*At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters
>sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the
>case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a
>few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives.
>Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and
>interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an
>organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals.
>Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all
>work on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an
>organizational standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard
>thinking and work to update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org
>in the FC movement. Functionally, we already see that this is a network of
>valuable resources sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks.
>Email is the primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there
>are other options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they
>could be!
>
>The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with
>SFC's current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it)
>to be effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page
>and commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable
>for ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a
>knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to
>(they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized
>for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are
>various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be
>social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together
>because that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)
>
>*The workflow - *Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and
>external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your
>chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at
>this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way,
>on the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example).
>There are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant
>folks, communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but
>eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki,
>which can then feedback into further work.
>
>(Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can
>be related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture
>itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)
>
>*2. Github*
>Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github
>account?
>
>freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture
>is available.
>
>I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can
>sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a
>few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.orgdomain?
>
>Repos to create:
>
>FreeCulture.org Wiki
>FreeCulture.org Site
>FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage
>and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move
>over to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be
>useful for consolidation purposes.
>
>// Matt
>
>On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host
>> don't concern me too much.
>>
>> Github is nice though!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because
>> it's
>> >> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>> >
>> > I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch)
>> just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>> >
>> > * Better bandwidth
>> > * More installed user base
>> > * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>> >
>> > Full conversation here:
>> >
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>> >
>> > Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>> >
>> > -- Asheesh.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Webteam mailing list
>> > Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>> _______________________________________________
>> Webteam mailing list
>> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

Alec Story | 1 May 16:08 2012
Picon

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

I question whether we need a fc github account for this.  Many software projects just have a contributor host the "official" account, which, due to the nature of git, can move from person to person.

On May 1, 2012 3:38 AM, "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):

1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives. Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals. Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement. Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!

The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)

The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks, communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki, which can then feedback into further work.

(Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)

2. Github
Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github account?

freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture is available.

I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org domain?

Repos to create:

FreeCulture.org Wiki
FreeCulture.org Site
FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful for consolidation purposes.

// Matt

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com> wrote:
As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host don't concern me too much.

Github is nice though!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>
>> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because it's
>> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>
> I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch) just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>
> * Better bandwidth
> * More installed user base
> * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>
> Full conversation here:
>
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>
> Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>
> -- Asheesh.
> _______________________________________________
> Webteam mailing list
> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
_______________________________________________
Webteam mailing list
Webteam <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
Samuel Klein | 1 May 16:35 2012
Picon

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

A thought:

Has SFC considered merging with another global free culture network,
to share resources, default workspaces, and convenings?  Perhaps as
the 'student' facet of a society-wide movement?  CC and Wikimedia come
to mind, but there are also others more focused on the arts.

We need to work together more to be heard.

SJ

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some
> feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):
>
> 1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
> At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters
> sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the
> case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a
> few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives.
> Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and
> interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an
> organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals.
> Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work
> on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational
> standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to
> update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement.
> Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources
> sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the
> primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other
> options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!
>
> The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's
> current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be
> effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and
> commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for
> ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a
> knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to
> (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized
> for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are
> various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be
> social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because
> that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)
>
> The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and
> external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your
> chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at
> this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on
> the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There
> are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks,
> communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but
> eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki,
> which can then feedback into further work.
>
> (Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be
> related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture
> itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)
>
> 2. Github
> Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github
> account?
>
> freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture
> is available.
>
> I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can
> sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a
> few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org
> domain?
>
> Repos to create:
>
> FreeCulture.org Wiki
> FreeCulture.org Site
> FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage
> and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over
> to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful
> for consolidation purposes.
>
> // Matt
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host
>> don't concern me too much.
>>
>> Github is nice though!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because
>> >> it's
>> >> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>> >
>> > I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch)
>> > just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>> >
>> > * Better bandwidth
>> > * More installed user base
>> > * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>> >
>> > Full conversation here:
>> >
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>> >
>> > Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>> >
>> > -- Asheesh.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Webteam mailing list
>> > Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>> _______________________________________________
>> Webteam mailing list
>> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
>

--

-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

Jennifer Scott | 1 May 17:27 2012

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

Good morning,
On the note of a students society movement...  
Would anyone who is actively involved be interested in being interviewed by me... as part of spreading the word as well as my final project for the term ? I've been researching the FC movement all semester  and I would be thrilled to participate in whatever you all may need in return for the interview.
Thanks ,

Jenn Scott
North Central College


----- Reply message -----
From: "Samuel Klein" <meta.sj <at> gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 1, 2012 9:35 am
Subject: [FC-discuss] [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10
To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular" <discuss <at> freeculture.org>
Cc: "SFC Web Team" <webteam <at> freeculture.org>


A thought:

Has SFC considered merging with another global free culture network,
to share resources, default workspaces, and convenings?  Perhaps as
the 'student' facet of a society-wide movement?  CC and Wikimedia come
to mind, but there are also others more focused on the arts.

We need to work together more to be heard.

SJ

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some
> feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):
>
> 1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
> At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters
> sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the
> case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a
> few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives.
> Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and
> interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an
> organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals.
> Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work
> on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational
> standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to
> update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement.
> Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources
> sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the
> primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other
> options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!
>
> The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's
> current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be
> effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and
> commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for
> ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a
> knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to
> (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized
> for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are
> various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be
> social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because
> that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)
>
> The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and
> external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your
> chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at
> this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on
> the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There
> are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks,
> communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but
> eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki,
> which can then feedback into further work.
>
> (Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be
> related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture
> itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)
>
> 2. Github
> Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github
> account?
>
> freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture
> is available.
>
> I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can
> sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a
> few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org
> domain?
>
> Repos to create:
>
> FreeCulture.org Wiki
> FreeCulture.org Site
> FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage
> and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over
> to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful
> for consolidation purposes.
>
> // Matt
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host
>> don't concern me too much.
>>
>> Github is nice though!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because
>> >> it's
>> >> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>> >
>> > I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch)
>> > just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>> >
>> > * Better bandwidth
>> > * More installed user base
>> > * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>> >
>> > Full conversation here:
>> >
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>> >
>> > Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>> >
>> > -- Asheesh.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Webteam mailing list
>> > Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>> _______________________________________________
>> Webteam mailing list
>> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
>



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
Matthew Senate | 1 May 19:56 2012
Picon

Re: [Webteam] [SFC-Core] Call in 10

If folks have comments about the workflow proposal, please send them. The graphic is attached again. That is the most important part of the message I sent.

As for the other notes:

1. For interviews, perhaps a board member should suffice? Not sure.

2. The larger discussion of whether SFC should merge with Wikimedia Foundation or Creative Commons is a long and non-trivial one. I think it falls under purview of the next board to investigate. My personal view is that neither WMF or CC have the infrastructure to support SFC as an org itself, though they could potentially provide fiscal sponsorship, other grants or financial support, and possibly partnerships on initiatives or events. Of course however, reps from those orgs should speak for themselves.

3. I'm personally agnostic between github and gitorious, I'm not sure what the free argument is there besides that gitorious is a free software project itself http://gitorious.org/gitorious/mainline, but the software is used in corporate environments and now supports private repositories, so it therefore can be used to create private and also proprietary software (not sure if that's true in practice). Note that the service does not provide private repos, just the software. FWIW, the software we're looking at using is tracked on Github https://github.com/localwiki/localwiki and we aren't really doing much software development, so it makes sense to fork and maybe submit a couple pull requests over time if we customize anything or hunt bugs. The primary purpose is to have an open, secure, and stable solution for managing the website with decentralized collaboration. Both seem like good solutions.

4. I think it makes sense to have a github account associated with the organization rather than an individual for the core repo since this is a group with high turn-over. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're right, it shouldn't be hard to sort this out later since git is flexible. On the other hand, I suggested making a repo for current site support, which would be silly to start under some individual's account rather than the org's, but that's not necessarily required.

// Matt

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Alec Story <avs38 <at> cornell.edu> wrote:

I question whether we need a fc github account for this.  Many software projects just have a contributor host the "official" account, which, due to the nature of git, can move from person to person.

On May 1, 2012 3:38 AM, "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):

1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives. Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals. Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement. Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!

The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)

The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks, communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki, which can then feedback into further work.

(Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)

2. Github
Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github account?

freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture is available.

I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org domain?

Repos to create:

FreeCulture.org Wiki
FreeCulture.org Site
FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful for consolidation purposes.

// Matt

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com> wrote:
As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host don't concern me too much.

Github is nice though!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>
>> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because it's
>> open.  Anyone feel strongly about this?
>
> I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch) just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>
> * Better bandwidth
> * More installed user base
> * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>
> Full conversation here:
>
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
> * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>
> Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>
> -- Asheesh.
> _______________________________________________
> Webteam mailing list
> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
_______________________________________________
Webteam mailing list
Webteam <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam



_______________________________________________
Webteam mailing list
Webteam <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
andrea fassina | 2 May 02:28 2012
Picon

Re: Discuss Digest, Vol 65, Issue 2

It could be a possibility but it would be a tradeoff with identity. 

What we need is more active participation. If the most realistic answer is to merge with another group, perhaps as you said as the student "front", then so be it. The decision should be left to the new board and the rest of the movement as a whole. 


 

A thought:

Has SFC considered merging with another global free culture network,
to share resources, default workspaces, and convenings?  Perhaps as
the 'student' facet of a society-wide movement?  CC and Wikimedia come
to mind, but there are also others more focused on the arts.

We need to work together more to be heard.

SJ

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Two things, apologies for the length but I'd **really** appreciate some
> feedback (and cc'ing discuss on this):
>
> 1. Workflow (Process, Knowledge-sharing, Etc)
> At the FCsummit, we observed some patterns of behavior for SFC. Chapters
> sometimes have a thriving group of folks, and even a whole network in the
> case of NYC's FC Coalition. Others seem to be just an individual or maybe a
> few folks, friends possibly roped in to working on events or initiatives.
> Given the growth of SFC internationally, and the current processes and
> interactions taking place as we speak, it seems that SFC, as an
> organization, acts like a network of resources, groups, and individuals.
> Folks share projects, ask questions, get advice, give feedback, and all work
> on awesome things in the Free/Libre Cultural space. From an organizational
> standpoint, the incoming board needs to do some hard thinking and work to
> update the purpose, mission, and direction of the org in the FC movement.
> Functionally, we already see that this is a network of valuable resources
> sharing knowledge amongst themselves and with new folks. Email is the
> primary conduit by which this sharing takes place. But there are other
> options and opportunities out there. We all see how valuable they could be!
>
> The draft I'm presenting (attached) should be somewhat consistent with SFC's
> current behavior patterns, but in order for it (or something like it) to be
> effective, we need to get folks in this community on the same page and
> commit to putting in a bit of time and investment to make it valuable for
> ourselves and for new people joining the FC movement. If we build a
> knowledge base, we need to be sure those who could contribute are able to
> (they have access) and that information can be organized, and categorized
> for intuitive and sufficient discovery (e.g. browse and search). There are
> various other constraints, but to me, the most critical change needs to be
> social--this community needs to adopt a process for working together because
> that's what it does--SFC is all about sharing! ;)
>
> The workflow - Work is done by chapters, individuals, the board, and
> external contributors. This work can be published anywhere (maybe your
> chapter has it's own wiki or blog, awesome!), or it could be unpublished at
> this time. At some point, either this work should be posted, in some way, on
> the SFC wiki (or at least linked to your chapter's blog for example). There
> are two routes. One is to start some email threads with relevant folks,
> communicate, and perhaps feedback into the work for some time, but
> eventually post to the wiki. The other is to post straight to the wiki,
> which can then feedback into further work.
>
> (Question: Does it seem intuitive that information posted on the wiki can be
> related to SFC the organization, individual chapters, or Free Culture
> itself? Anyone have thoughts about this?)
>
> 2. Github
> Okay, on this note, what email address should I use to set up the github
> account?
>
> freeculture is taken, studentsforfreeculture is available, and libreculture
> is available.
>
> I think using webteam <at> freeculture.org is a security risk since anyone can
> sign up for it and we only really need the account to sign up and create a
> few repos. Do we have any admin/info accounts for the freeculture.org
> domain?
>
> Repos to create:
>
> FreeCulture.org Wiki
> FreeCulture.org Site
> FreeCulture.org Support - This may be a convenient place to openly manage
> and document work on the site as it exists, then retire it once we move over
> to the new site, but it's not totally necessary. Thought it might be useful
> for consolidation purposes.
>
> // Matt
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eddie A Tejeda <eddie.tejeda <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> As long as we use git and publish the source code, the details on host
>> don't concern me too much.
>>
>> Github is nice though!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Asheesh Laroia <freeculture <at> asheesh.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Alec Story wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know when we discussed this in the past we favored gitorious because
>> >> it's
>> >> open. ?Anyone feel strongly about this?
>> >
>> > I used to be a big Gitorious partisan, but my main project (OpenHatch)
>> > just switched to Github for the following reasons:
>> >
>> > * Better bandwidth
>> > * More installed user base
>> > * "Web hooks" that let you get pinged when the repo changes
>> >
>> > Full conversation here:
>> >
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/002521.html
>> > * http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/002658.html
>> >
>> > Do note that this makes me sad in some ways.
>> >
>> > -- Asheesh.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Webteam mailing list
>> > Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>> _______________________________________________
>> Webteam mailing list
>> Webteam <at> freeculture.org
>> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/webteam
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
>



--
Samuel Klein? ? ? ? ? identi.ca:sj ?? ? ? ?? w:user:sj ? ? ? ? ?+1 617 529 4266


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss


End of Discuss Digest, Vol 65, Issue 2
**************************************

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
Chris Sakkas | 2 May 19:13 2012
Picon

Moving my wiki of shareable and libre content up a notch

Hi folks,

For the last two years or so I've been cataloguing libre and shareable content that I come across on my wiki, the FOSsil Bank (http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/)

It currently contains almost 500 shareable works, of which almost 300 are libre (my definition of shareable work is basically: 'under CC BY-NC-ND or a more liberal licence, or in the public domain' and my definition of libre is basically: 'under an open knowledge, open source, free culture or free software licence, or in the public domain'). I might be biased, but I think it's a great little resource.

But I'm also not sure what to do with it. I'm basically the only person who contributes to it, and it's gotten to the size where I've added all the libre content that I (so far) know or care about it. What I'm wondering is whether you have any ideas of where we could take it from here: how to raise its profile, how to build up a community around it, and so on.

I think one of the first steps would be to set up a mailing list for people who are interested in finding more libre and shareable works. I would like the mailing list to use FLOSS, but I can't host it myself. Is there any cloud-based FLOSS mailing list service I could use?

Thanks in advance for your feedback, folks,

Chris

Chris Sakkas
Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and Twitter feed.


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
Ali Sternburg | 2 May 19:30 2012
Picon

Fwd: Fw: European Court of Justice Rules Code Can't be Copyrighted

An excerpt:

The Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

1.      Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.


The ECJ today ruled that the programming code behind a piece of software is not a form of expression and therefore cannot be copyrighted.

Link to ruling: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122362&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=110132


--
Ali Sternburg
alisternburg <at> gmail.com
Harvard College, Class of 2009
American University Washington College of Law, J.D. Candidate Class of 2012
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

Gmane