Governance Meeting Notes

Date: December 17th, 2020
Facilitator: Katie
Participants: Bruno, Katie, Vasilis, Nick


  • check in
    • Prolonged but nice!
  • Overview of Nathan Call
    • Important to the goverenace proceses clear in Karrot
    • Think about what in integrated into the code
    • Reflection on the conflict resolution
  • Talk about next steps
    • Finish sketching later
    • Now we move on to Stage 3 - Decide
    • Use heat map and dote to decide what needs more discussion
    • Do we need to check if there is anyting that is still missing?
  • Stage 3: Decide
    • Bruno is interested in working with most elemets, maybe we can chose one decision making model, and skip library for now.
    • Nick likes the vision text box, he had also seltected the library but is up for having it as an add-on later. A light weight editing and approval would be usefell
    • Vasileois thinks its import to ask who will test the prototype, if two groups will test it would be nice to integrate imtergroup learning, I think all groups should test it. In agreement
    • Katie try one decision making model or both and do some A/B testing. Categories are interesting and working with the vision text boxes.
    • TRY: Treshold of apporoval based on the trust karrot systems. Reactions and temperature check. A multi-stage process, 1. Temperature Check (If all positive or neutral it gets approved) 2. If negative reactions occur then it need approval from 3ish highly trusted members.
  • Move on to prototyping, choose what to prototype
    • things not represented in the sketch right now:
      • democratic flow around agreement proposals
      • Build a facade and try to test with multiple groups, Bruno and Katie could test in their groups and then do others over call
      • Work in tandom, coders start on one page while others work with IA/WIREFRAMES/Mockups
  • Next meeting
    • 30/12
  • Facilitator next meeting:
    • Bruno
  • check out

Call with Nathan Schneider

Date: 2020-12-14 16:00 UTC
Present: Bruno, Katie, Vasileios, Nathan
Faciliator: Bruno

Call to discuss, brainstorm and see where ideas from Community Rule may fit into Karrot’s design of governance features and vice-versa

  • checkin

  • Quick presentation of our projects and their respective goals

    • Nathan working wih mutual aid groups and present visual guides and templates for governance and organizing
    • Also based on Ostrom’s principles for governing the commons
    • Question: agreement or organization logics?
  • A few questions we might have to each other:

    • Can Karrot be an iteration of CR, making it suitable for groups to choose different governance templates?
    • Are we making any explicit or implicit ideological choices in our design process, more biased to a certain kind of governance?
      • Recognize there is a bias in governance model of platforms (implicit feudalism)
    • How might we make a simple user-friendly process for groups that are just beginning and haven’t put much thought into their governance structure?
    • How might we guide and help groups in the evolution of their governance structure as they get bigger?
    • What makes sense to be hard-coded in the software (e.g. voting mechanisms) and what doesn’t?
    • Require that groups make explicit what their structures are
    • Idea of templates at community rule is to make it easy for groups to adopt them seemlessly and then adapt as they progress
  • Wherever our discussion is taking us…

  • Outcome: anything we could collaborate on? Next steps?

    • Share updates on what we’re doing
  • checkout

Governance Design Process meeting

Date: 2021-01-07 12:00 UTC
Present: Bruno, Nick, Katie, Vasileios
Faciliator: Nick

  • checkin
  • expectations
    • not very clear
    • maybe a chunk of prototype progressed today, if not, maybe a plan that can be worked on in the coming week
    • becoming a little more concrete
    • … but also open to general discussions as they might be needed
    • getting some inspiration to work more on it
  • timing
    • until 2:30/3?
  • the map from Vasileios
    • Excalidraw | Hand-drawn look & feel • Collaborative • Secure
    • trying to understand where karrot exists between different initiatives and processes
    • call with nick to understand some of the history/geneology behind karrot
    • different actors/stakeholders in the cosmos around karrot
    • maybe to open up bigger and more abstract discussions and connections
    • invition to play around with map :slight_smile:
    • idea to bring in more non-food relating karrot groups and vision of where karrot goes in the future
    • how to establish connections to other groups and movements and more publicity
    • origin of karrot was international groups reaching out to
    • need to start connecting to other groups and understanding them, e.g. makerspaces, freeshops, community gardens
    • interesting how it fits into broader food system, and maybe keeping a food focus is a good idea, “changing food systems” theme, a lot to unpack within food sharing context without needing to go beyond that
    • longer term possiblities for people to run other instances for different purposes/areas
    • open source / free software basis
    • trigger for creating the map is to see how adding governance features relates to the bigger picture (butterfly effect), maybe useful for general vision/approach
    • the reality of karrot vision and values is confusing, so useful to explore the complex reality
    • could have another map that is only showing the things specifically related to governance topics
    • background of more hierarchy admin/reporting system in, and karrot being a reaction/alternative to that
    • way of organising ends up more general than specific to food
    • social issue of managing and sharing food, but also issues are managing communities of people in online/offline spaces
    • maybe seeing the topic of general purposes-ness in three different levels
      • code level - the features are useful for many types of groups
      • a community organising model - the self-organized community model can fit wider groups
      • what the users/communities actually see and interact with (messaging, branding, language) - can be confusing if people don’t see how it relates to their group
  • feedback for landing page language changes
    • changes are the main title (“slogan”), the two subtitles, and a very small change in the “Democratic and participative development”
    • taking away the sharing focus
    • idea for a Big Release at some point with the new features (e.g. group templates), as a package with new landing page
    • ideas to see how it can work for a freeshop and a toy library
    • maybe some more time to reflect and think, given we are all very familiar with these terms
    • if people are looking for this kind of thing should be clear
    • a lot of (tech) people don’t actually know what a “community” is, a lot of people think about it geographically (e.g. neighbours), somepeople wouldn’t think of online communities as a community
    • commons theory clarifies what communities are
    • “group” vs “community” to clarify → “Empowering self-organized groups”, connects to WhatsApp and facebook “groups”
    • group into community → becoming of a community/commons. a process rather than title.
    • communities have boundaries, agreements, and conflict resolution processes
    • currently when people are looking for an online tool, they might be thinking about “groups” (i.e. instead of facebook group have a karrot group)
    • add in the conceptual part of what a community is somewhere, application process, governance processes
    • let people create a group, then with our helping hand they become a community
    • what is the different between facebook group and karrot?
      • data ownership
      • more specific features
      • open source
    • closing reflections
      • Nick: nice framing to get connection between values/vision and where people/groups are at right now in their understandings and practise
      • Bruno: nice insights, practical thing to change word community to group, and work on some other details
      • Katie: discussion on community really interesting, trying to find out what people understanding, going from group into community makes sense, especially in the context of our governance design process. how to make a group become a community. commonning as a verb, fractal affinities of defining and redefining, from cultural commons (how can you own cultural stuff when it’s come from a whole history of it, so balance of ownership). “start a group, become a community” ← nice!
      • Vasileios: really nice to have a new landing page, maybe “signup” and “browse existing groups” could go further down the page, so they are more likely to skim through the points, would be glad to join on working on more of this
  • prototype
    • katies sketch
      • Excalidraw | Hand-drawn look & feel • Collaborative • Secure
      • examples of visions that people want
      • explanations for each type of decision making
        • maybe one sentence for a quick overview, and a link for more detailed explanation
        • in a popup instead of a new page
      • can select multiple ones plus an explanation of how they work within your specific group
        • means people can just adopt part of a methodology
      • clarify that selecting the decision making models will not impact how the software actually works
        • especially as they will be referring to offline processes too
        • it might be in the future we do have different software decision methods, but that should be configured clearly seperately
      • can be useful to see groups that might have similar vibes
      • good to keep flexible for groups as they will likely never be simple and use one specific method
      • how about for new groups? we don’t want to overwhelm them with options
        • maybe adding an “other” option
      • how to make clear that some of the inputs are optional?
        • prototype has toggles at the moment
        • should nudge them towards filling it in, toggles might make people not bother
        • some people just want to skip right to the end
        • maybe have a button before to “setup community organisation” or “do it later”, rather than for each field
        • who has access to change these things later?
          • maybe group editors, just use the existing mechanics of it?
        • make it clear you don’t have to do it now, but nudge to review as the group mature
          • maybe when it gets to a certain size, or time period, to nudge people
          • “this can be changed at any time”
      • how should the view version of it look like (as opposed to the editing view)
      • not wedded to the drag and drop interface
      • democratic process for approving new agreements (or changes to vision/governance)?
        • have more than 1 editors to approval
        • pending state?
        • possibly could implement it without democratic processes initially for a MVP
        • some groups probably wouldn’t give any feedback until it’s actually available in their group on
      • changing the vision, etc would be nice to get people to have to explicitly re-agree (like in the existing hidden agreements feature), but maybe to postpone that
      • how about “main agreement” (big text box) vs individual agreements
        • “general agreement” relates to the application process too (as they are agreeing to it basically)
        • should not be so specific
        • specific ones more appropriate for the individual agreements
  • pick facilitator for next week: Bruno
  • checkout


  • post map from Vasileios to community forum (as png)
  • Nick and Bruno will continue prototyping based on Katie’s sketch
  • Vasilis and Bruno will work on the writing/wording
  • Katie will continue with sketches time permitting


Map from Vasileios

Sketch from Katie

Next meeting:

  • Date: 2021-01-14 12:00 UTC
  • Facilitator: Bruno

Date: 2020-12-30 12:00 UTC
Present: Bruno, Nick, Katie, Vasileios
Facilitator: Vasileios

  • checkin
  • expectations for today’s meeting
    • first day back trying to work again, so we’re kinda slow/unfocused
    • keep expectations low
    • maybe move just a bit forward
    • do the prototype today
  • we have a prototype from Nick and Bruno
    • → - temporary link → nick’s laptop–> basic components
      → later will look a bit more karroty
    • short description of the prototype from Bruno
    • Nick: think of other bits or different screens
    • Katie: sense of connectivity among those tasks
      • adding vision, then “how are we going to make this happen” pointing at the ways a community is taking decisions
    • Nick: vertical design? When u fill in the vision then decision making would appear
      • include some of the communityrule suggestions
    • in this prototype keep in mind that other non-foosharing/saving groups can use karrot
    • some more context for when/how decision making is part of a general approach/process
    • the domain page: how to incorporate vision, decision making etc displayed in existing ‘side menu’
    • existing vs new groups when thinking about this prototype
    • conflict-resolution/issues as part of the main governance page
    • what’s the language we use: for example instead of governance? →
      • community organization?
      • something about self governance?
      • a spanish word Bruno likes: … Autogestión → self management
      • karrot groups through design indicate an other way of groups if compared with a FB group
        where admins have those privileges
        -tags for decision making → community rule tags, but also open text to explain how a community operates
  • next meeting?
    • Date: 2021-01-07T12:00:00Z
    • Facilitator: Nick
  • checkout and our next steps

Governance Design Process meeting

Date: 2021-01-14 12:00 UTC
Present: Bruno, Nick, Katie, Vasileios
Faciliator: Bruno

  • duration
    • Bruno/others? 1h+ 13:20 UTC
    • Vasileios 40m
  • checkin
  • expectations
    • evaluate and advance the prototype a little
    • any balance of chat/prototype
    • more practical aspects of prototype
    • landing page as the chat/higher level part
  • landing page
    • discussion between Vasileios and Bruno:
      • importance of the language we use
      • less gender biased platform, how we can incorporate these ideas?
      • “Start a group, become a community” suggestion from Katie
      • added “autonomous” in addition to “voluntary” (coming more from charity or state culture, exploited)
      • screenshots could use mockups instead of real groups (privacy), maybe a few more mockups for applications and issues
      • … although real screenshots are maybe useful for engagement with groups, could ask for permission, a way to reengage with some of the groups
      • “no admin superpowers” explanation of “no bosses”
      • people might be coming with a perspective of “not a facebook or whatsapp group, ah it’s a tool, what does it do…”
      • gender biases of the photos we use
      • independent groups → emphasise they can have their own agreements
      • show a group map somewhere
      • distribution of tasks and activities → expanding beyond foodsaving groups
      • the word “offer”, OK in English, removed “ad-like” prefix. in other languages it gets translated into words more like “sales” (discussion beyond landing page) - maybe add some context somehow/somewhere to make it understood more like gift economy
      • we can write a message to people on transifex
      • open source prominence?
      • how to get the users to understand the right expectations of the karrot platform, as it works like the groups themselves
      • … maybe a visual diagram could be helpful
      • maybe an about page?
      • … could be a way to help people deepen their knowledge if they’re interested without confusing people
  • prototype
    • adding the values tagging bit to the agreements
      • puts agreement in context of what it’s for
      • warm fluffy headings
      • customizable at some point, but initially fixed by us
      • could have an “other, specify”, and periodically collect good ideas, vote on community forum?
    • different editing view for creating a new group vs editing later?
      • question about whether to always make groups go through a “wizard” stepper?
      • need to keep in mind that groups might want to add different sections at different times
    • maybe vision and decision-making can be input early, but the agreements maybe come later (more detail)
    • should we have main/general agreement in addition to more specific agreements?
      • in Gothenburg the general agreement is a “guidelines for foodsavers”, and it’s about agreeing to it as you join
        • in this case it makes sense to have as ONE thing
        • seperate agreements are there for ambassadors / store managers, or people that introduce people, and sharing places
      • is it possible to fit groups that have general agreements into seperate agreements
      • in Stockholm they have an intro text (used in the application box)
      • agreements as not so long, but more concrete
      • idea to have flexible agreements that they can be very long documents or one liners
        • if they’re long documents they might need a title/summary too?
      • but for rule library shorter ones make more sense
      • if the group has many small agreements, it’s nice to see them as ONE thing too in a list
      • for the longer documents having a context on who or what it applies to is important
        • could have a text field to explain the context
      • idea for agreements to have
        • one line text to be title/agreement/summary
        • optional long text too
        • optional context field
        • optional place connection
      • connection to the application processes
        • maybe agreements can be marked as “main” or “important” and they are shown there?
      • would be good to look at real agreements and see how it could fit here
        • Gothenburg ones, and bike kitchen
        • ones?
        • Copenhagen
        • Luxembourgh?
        • community forum post (ping known people) + playground group + more direct contacts?
      • if using karrot from the beginning might start with one-liner agreements
        • e.g. have some just about pickups
        • then more for starting co
      • maybe if we have lots of individual agreements they need to belong in group-defined categories
      • big open question about the value of having agreements managed as seperate items
        • in Gothenburg writing a whole document made sense, to get input from it as a whole
        • adding initial documents as a whole seems useful, but managing more granular changes later could make sense
        • seeing each individual agreement in a context or bigger whole is important
      • principle to try and avoid overwhelming people with walls of text
        • so this idea to only show people a small amount when the apply
        • or only showing them place-specific agreements when they actually need them
    • discussions around how groups grow with central and regional hubs
      • regional ones should have autonomy to do their own thing to some extent
      • but also a connection to the central thing
      • some thoughts how to support some of this stuff inside karrot
    • moving “new group” process to a wizard in general
      • some required steps, some optional
      • if skipping some steps, any time later can come back to re-do those steps
      • editing the info
    • a part/section for reporting abuse
      • dealing with conflicts/abuse
      • e.g. anti-harrassment policy stuff
  • pick facilitator for next week:
  • reflections and checkout
    • a more questions raised! (positive)
      • a lot around the agreement management
      • … as wall of text, or short snippets
      • … organising/tagging/categories, unclear right now. see need, but not solution.
      • sketches welcome!
    • looking forward to collecting real-life examples, should bring back clarity/focus
    • a bit confused what we’re producing now vs our discussions before, trying to connect dots, a bit lost
    • need to visualize how it’s going to be
    • bringing up more big questions instead of closing down! hoping clarity comes
    • confusion level’s gone up, but used to it. Just need to get practical and build at some point.
    • Back to the idea of the Google sprint, more focused. Maybe need to get back there.
    • Try to scale down the idea and build less, like just the vision/decision-making.
    • Also nice to explore how groups can actually make use of the agreements feature
    • Now we’re working on a more normal design process, not a sprint.


Next meeting:

  • Date: 2021-01-21 12:00 UTC
  • Facilitator: ?

Date: January 21st, 2021
Facilitator: Bruno
Participants: Bruno, Nick, Vasileios, Katie


  • check in

    • some chat about how to show alternatives to project organising:
      • traditional charity kind of model: find some funding/sponsors, employ some people, manage volunteers for the rest
      • new model: more community orientated structure, no big division between “volunteers” and “staff”
  • Examples of governance in groups (Discussion)

    • insights from Copenhagen’s code of conduct and ethics
      • two documents, code of conduct which refers to code of ethics
      • those two are the ones you have the read before you can participate
      • they also have many more, but a bit overwhelming!
      • the amount of structure/rigidity in the docs is due to the scale of them
      • they have a board structure, with 6 different roles
        • volunteer management
        • community
        • etc
      • re-election of roles every 6 months
      • organised quite rigidly in that model
      • they do like the community vibe, but maybe struggle with making it happen
      • can really feel like work, especially with the larger events
      • 600-700 hundred members, 200-250 active volunteers
      • at big events, have market collections in the van (2-3 people), 6 people to do bakery collections, setup shift (10-12 people), … and other roles with 12 people or so
      • smaller events also
      • get a lot of students and international students, can have more volunteers than shifts, people compete for them
      • but other periods they’re missing volunteers
      • food inspector made it so random people can’t contribute food
      • dissident group on karrot?
        • Karrot
        • the people are also in foodsharing copenhagen
        • it works as a side project
        • some food comes from the events to go in the fridge
        • more of a community model (anyone can bring food, unlike in foodsharing copehagen)
      • foodsharing copenhagen use 3 different cultural spaces for events, and book the space
      • they keep some equipment in the spaces, but don’t use the space outside the events
      • foodsharing stockholm have a fridge that they can use to put in food to preserve it for longer
      • question whether foodsharing stockholm have a wider political/social agenda? or just food waste = bad
        • key volunteers see themselves as activists, focused on food waste
        • struggle with some of the social/practical issues
        • practical work of running events takes over, so maybe less time to do wider political/social work
        • did hold a public food waste dinner to raise awareness of food waste
        • wider topics are a goal, but hard to fit in
        • a lot of work dealing with conflicts in the group (racism, who takes what, blocking people joining)
        • lead to some other projects created, e.g. foodsharing ? (not sure of the name)
        • dealing with the size of the group has maybe taken away from some of the initial values
      • the board decided on the agreements, any idea for which process is used to challenge/manage the rules?
        • e.g. if you wanted to challenge rule number 9 (about not bringing your children to a shift)
        • they have meetings where it can be discussed
        • do a majority vote to approve stuff, and have a chair to co-ordinate things
        • some of the rules can make it feel like work, and they have training programme, etc.
        • events are a lot of work due to the scale, so require a tight operation!
        • some people go to get food, and the work is the “payment”
        • hard to embrace community structure AND get the work done
      • maybe to run as an actual community would require at least a majority of people that share a similar goal
      • have been a lot of issues about people who take too much food, so addressed by having more specific rules, and volunteers to try and keep people to it
        • some similar conflicts in Gothenburg too
          • the place that has the most food has the most conflicts and issues (e.g. hiding food)
        • in stockholm due to covid they’ve been trying to avoid crowding
          • some people trying to keep more food for themselves, and keep it more quiet
          • “it’s free I’ll take whatever I can carry”, hard to get people to take a wider mindset about it (thinking about the other people)
          • at least the volunteers should have a value-driven purpose, maybe less important for attendees
      • question is scale is very interesting/relevant to karrot
        • how much can a group scale using karrot?
        • how do the governance features fit into this
      • the two documents fit into the model of document with title + a lot of numbered points
      • the code of ethics document seems to fit the “value tags” ideas quite a lot
        • each point is talking about the wider value that the point is for
      • including the context of the points is maybe very useful
        • e.g. seeing why rules that sound harsh are there (there is usually a reason)
    • Noisebridge model of do-ocracy and consensus
      • Community Standards - Noisebridge
      • conflict between do-ocracy and consensus? how does that work!
      • document is on a wiki
      • fits the model of a document with a title and sub points
      • including context of rules + values would be really nice :slight_smile:
    • Solikyl Gothenburg documents
      • a category in their forum where they keep the main documents/agreements:
      • and another category for meeting notes
      • e.g. there are documents (posts) on there about the rules for people responsible for a sharing location
      • is it possible to use a forum with karrot, so groups can have their own forum within a bigger one
        • using an external forum? or a forum feature?
        • we did start some work for being able to login to karrot/foodsaving forum with karrot account
        • but even so for optimal participation having the features in karrot seems needed
        • some thoughts to keep the forum more for karrot meta/development than for the groups themselves to use
    • Foodsharing Luxembourg
      • Daniel said “Currently, we keep our agreements inside our meeting minutes on a shared drive on Google Drive. We update our group agreement based on these smaller agreements at least once a year. I do not think that this is ideal because agreements should be evaluated and then changed or discarded after a certain time. Otherwise, the list of agreements will grow indefinitely. I have not found a better way on handling this yet. Does this help you already”
      • seems like it could be a really good use case for what we’re working on (e.g. being able to remove agreements too!)
    • a couple more listed at (kanthaus, foodsharing):
    • foodsharing Stockholm
      • a newer group with very few rules for now as they are smaller

      • they have rules for a foodsharing point
        -Foodsharing Point-
        Rules for use

        This food was rescued by Foodsharing Stockholm, which is a community-based movement that helps to reduce food-waste. By taking this food, you have become a part of the Foodsharing movement! :slight_smile:

        Dropping off food at a Foodsharing point:
        Go through all the food in the fridge/cupboards and the food that you are dropping off. Throw away any of the following:
        Anything that you yourself would not eat (apart from personal dietary restrictions)
        Food that has gone past the expiration date (sista förbrukningsdag)
        Rinse any packaging from old food and recycle it if recycling bins are available.
        If any food has spilled in the fridge/cupboards, clean it up.

        Taking food from Foodsharing point:
        If the best-before date (bäst-före datum) has passed: Use your senses! Look, smell and taste the food.
        If the expiration date (sista förbrukningsdag) has passed: Throw it away!
        If neither date has passed: Enjoy!

      • wondering at which stage adding more structured agreements is useful?

        • so how much should we push the agreement of creating agreements in new groups?
        • or should they wait until a conflict/issue happens?
        • depends on the size of the group (maybe prompting them at that point)
        • ultra advanced AI to do text sentiment analysis to detect when conflict is brewing :wink:
    • groups might not include all their documents there, but over time maybe can include more
      • particularly boring legal document? focus more on everyday kind of documents
    • the groups don’t seem to use digital tools for discussing the documents, more from physical meetings
      • seems like it
      • in karrot we’re thinking to create the place for debating of the rules
      • do people not debate them online because of missing tools? or something else?
      • one of the hard questions we raised at the beginning was how to create someting to faciliate face-to-face interaction too, to complement digital and physical spaces
      • so using it as a repository of agreements should be ok too
      • a lot of decisions might be made in person first, then discussed later on karrot
      • shouldn’t aim to take away face-to-face action
      • the mechanism by which an approval is approved (e.g. reactions smiley face, etc…) and whether it should be anonymous or not, should consider these points!
  • Design of agreement’s page(s)

    • Nick’s wireframe Stage 2 - Sketching Solutions - #8 by nicksellen
    • “context for change” comes up during the change proposal phase, but maybe it’d be useful to comment on bits?
    • this design would’ve worked well in the recent experience of Solikyl in writing, discussing, getting feedback and approving a document about roles.
    • set the time limit for an agreement, will al the proposals go through all they just gonna stay there? time limit sounds necessairy
    • the time limits defined by the group itself
    • e-mail notifications
    • banner reminding that there is an open proposal
    • split screen or tab views proposals and approved ones
    • how to promote in-person discussions and decision-making?
      • idea: when creating a proposal ask the question of how the process will be
    • when reaches the time limit and there’s no negative reaction, it passes. Or 3 times more positive than negative it would get approved. If not, re-submit. Inspired on score voting
    • 4 bits to add to the sketch/prototype:
      • time component
      • field for people to write how to participate in process (e.g. in person meetings, or only online, etc…)
      • file upload for minutes
      • approval mechanism - how to approve a proposal? Face reactions would be more like temperature check
    • how to dispute approved agreements? Or make sure they’re not challenged right after being approved?
    • live democracy approach not just a fixed weekly or sth session
    • anonymous vs non-anonymous? maybe dig into deeper in the future :slight_smile:
  • Next meeting

    • Two threads to future work
      1. Vision field and how to make decisions
      2. Agreements work flow
  • Facilitator next meeting: Katie

  • check out

Date: 2021-01-28
Facilitator: Katie
Participants: Katie, Nick, Vasileios, Bruno


  • check in
    • We are generally feeling good, a bit sleepy and tired of staying home. A mix of cold and nice weather
  • Insights into Karrot Groups
    • Vasileios was thinking that in order to get myself more acquainted with karrot and its different uses from different groups it would make sense to engage with members of various groups. Having that said and in order to use this time till moving in Sweden I think it would make sense to do some interviews with members of various groups. Interviews through which I will try to understand how karrot is used within different ecosystems.
    • Came up after the call with Bruno about the landing page, reviewing the agreements from the example groups, groups use karrot differently, see karrot different as part of their ecosystem
    • Vasileios would like to interview members from different groups in different cultural and political contexts
    • This could be done by joining a group to see that first point of contact
    • Many groups on Karrot that we don’t have contact with so it would be interesting to get there perspective
    • How much of a general purpose tool this should be, at the beginning it was very focused to a particular style of foodsharing groups, its open general now focused in decentralising group organising but still quite particular. It will never be as general as a WhatsApp group for example.
  • Keeping the focus on food saving or opening it up to their activities.
    • how to prevent falling back into individualistic practices
    • People become hyper-focused on following rules and maintaining the materialities of the software to the point that they start to question why you are doing this in the first place
    • Applying the means to an end to the point that you loose sight of the end
  • Focus on the prototype
    • Not so much progress between meetings
    • Looking at FB group rules, individually editable
    • Our agreement examples would likely not work with this kind of structure at its too simple
    • Ride share group had 6 basic rules issues would be reported directly to group admins or using the FB feature, on occasions there would be issues not covered in the rule set and in these cases people would often post about their issue on the open wall or direct message someone in the admin team. 3 different systems.
    • Impressive that they can run this operation within these confines, although Vasileios explained that the group does not have the same level of collaboration/collectivity more of a peer-to-peer system.
  • Prototype of the rules
    • Do we have any input on this before Nick take the prototype to the next level
    • New collaborators are working on the new group on-bording wizard, should we use this opportunity to integrate the related governance features previously discussed such as vision and general agreements
    • Such great timing
    • At what point do we feel we can hand over the sketches and prototype to them to start building?
    • Perhaps this project is too much in the beginning, could be better to go through the design/development/review cycle with a more straightforward task first
    • We need to finalise this language used for the buttons etc and discuss some of the other details on the prototype
    • Maybe for the buttons we can add descriptions or link directly to community rule
    • Probably not necessary to include all of the decision making types included in CR (seems to be designed by an academic, many obscure ones!)
    • We could start by adding the ones we are familiar with/know that existing groups use and add others later if they come up regularly in text based descriptions.
  • How should we proceed now
    • Work concretely now or make a clear plan to enforce another day
    • How can we analyse the rules we collected, Nick, Katie, Bruno feel we have the info we need from the rules in terms of getting a sense of how they fit
    • The question of the value tags, balance of Karrot ideology and group flexibility. How do the value appear, where do they go, dig deeper into the purpose of them, how many values? Katie can work on this.
    • identifying values inherent in the written rules.
    • Hierarchy of values e.g. Collaboration to punctuality. Dominant or male idea of value as pertaining to financial value vs less dominant or female idea of value as pertaining to relational values.
  • We will have a co-working session Tuesday morning
  • Next meeting February 2021
  • Facilitator next meeting
    • Vasileios
  • check out


  • write an issue/post to describe an “inspiration-bot” system (nick)
    • like on slack when you login in can show you custom inspiring (aka cheesy) messages
  • Katie can work on the value tags
  • Continue developing the prototype based on the sketches
  • Vasileios will work on: The decision making models, how to present these and which to include. Investigate with groups, how do they name their processes? There are likely different processes used that do not have a name, the text box is needed to reflect that decision making is not a similar process. Members can likely describe the process they use concretely but dont necessarily relate it to a defined decision making model. Having the tags and examples could also aid to inspire groups to explore new models or elements of these models
  • ask for decision-making structure on forum: Share your community guidelines, rules, or agreements! - #2 by danveg
  • communityrule decision making type list: Approval voting, Condorcet, Consensus, Continuous voting, Disapproval voting, Do-ocracy, Lazy consensus, Majority Voting, Proof of Work, Quadratic Voting, Range Voting, Ranked Choice, Rough Consensus, Stake Weight, Stochastic Choice

Date: 2021-02-04
Facilitator: Vasilis
Participants: Katie, Nick, Vasileios, Bruno


  • check in

  • state of our work

    • Katie has been looking into the values of groups using karrot–> starting point for the value tabs → which terms for values are appropriate?
      • values sketch:
      • looking for connections between karrot’s groups values and karrot itself
      • some terms might be similar to other value terms
      • Nick: what about negative values, what behavior you do not want to support
      • groups collaboratively exploring values
      • how can such activities be proposed to groups by software?
    • prototype shared by Nick and Bruno:
    • sketch: how various actions lead to the various agreements-related tabs:
      • consent system: could it be a warning? will members get a notification e.g. do u approve this agreement?
    • the digital could work as the place where members of a group could draft an agreement, maybe one that was discussed in a physical meeting. Or not e.g. a member could bring this up directly via the digital →
    • Katie: put the draft to be reviewed on karrot and get feedback, some members can then chip in
    • Brn: insight from existing group: put up the agreements we already have. What would not be covered → Where to put the minutes of the meetings we have
      • stockholm group: set up an activity and then post the minutes on the feedback
    • we see the digital here as a more organized/accesible (compared to the use of various channels) way to review/discuss over agreements
    • create the possibility for members to engage more in the culture/vision/overall aim etc of a group
    • For now we make a rough prototype and freiburg group does the makeover

    In short the steps

    • create a new agreement (editors can do that)
    • a draft is created
    • any other group editor can edit the same proposal
    • anybody can see the proposal and they can participate in the related chat
      • nick way: anybody can choose +1,0, -1. The result is score voting →
  • proposal to approve a proposal: x (3 maybe) times more positive votes than negative
    - if you place a negative vote you should write a msg, negative reactions/vote should be motivated/explained
    - If the score is in favor of the proposal then it becomes approved.
    - Brn way: temperature check to get the mood of the room (they do not decide but only editors can accept or reject)–> what happens where people approve sth that has a lot of dislikes? temperature check vs editor-powered
    - should there be a lower threshold for how many members should vote in order for an agreement to be approved?

  • katie looking into the values of groups using karrot–> starting point for the value tabs → which terms for values are appropriate?

    • excalidraw values sketch: Excalidraw | Hand-drawn look & feel • Collaborative • Secure
      • looking for connecitons between karrot’s groups values and karrot itself
      • some terms might be similar to other value terms
      • Nick: what about negative values, what behavior you do not want to support
      • groups collaborativelly exploring values
      • how can such activities be proposed to groups by software?
  • pick faciliator for next time

    • Nick
  • check out


  • write a post at the community forum under Governance category to record decisions made about the prototype/features: how it will work, look like, etc. (Vasilis, Bruno) based on the description above on who can propose/change agreements, the voting mechanisms, etc.

Date: 2021-02-11
Facilitator: Nick
Participants: Nick, Vasileios, Bruno


  • check in
  • state of our work
  • write a description of the decisions we made about the features, how it will be, etc.
  • discussion about the voting system
    • Vasilis suggestion: having both a temperature check and an actual voting
    • maybe with a continuous voting in which people can change their vote maybe that is not necessary
    • in the proposal above a negative vote requires a reason, but not the negative reaction (temp check)
    • Nick’s suggestion: a time period (one week) just having temp check and a second phase for the actual binding voting
    • another idea: temperature check is a scale (for ex. 0 to 5)
    • Nick’s two phases idea could also be applied to the conflict resolution feature
    • Not sure if the idea above is good for now, but maybe for later
    • What is the simplest idea we can come up with now?
    • different aspects our proposals need to address
      • who gets to create proposals?
      • who gets to edit the proposal? (just the creator? only editors? anyone?)
      • what is the time scale for deciding on a agreement? Set by users or pre-established? Maybe not really need to decide for the prototype
        • … and is the timescale a minimum, or fixed value
      • who gets to cast binding votes?
      • do we use non-binding temperature checks?
        • and if so, how do they relate to binding votes?
      • is there a threshold % of members required for binding votes?
      • which voting mechanism/maths do we use? (e.g. score voting with negative weighting)
    • a few proposals that address the aspects
      • proposal 1 (from Vasileios)
        • only editors can create proposals
        • 4 options for the timescale (3 days, 7 days, 15 days, 20 days)
        • only the editor that created the proposal can edit it
        • other people can read suggestions in the chat and implement those ideas
        • no temperature checks, only binding votes
        • anyone can vote
        • majority voting
        • 60% turnout of the group members required
        • feedback:
          • very simple (good)
      • proposal 2 (from Bruno)
        • only editors can create proposals
        • minimum time scale: 1 week
        • any editor can edit the proposal
        • changes in the proposal are recorded in the timeline of the chat (at least a minimum “this person made a change”, ideally the change content too)
        • anybody can do a temperature check
        • temperature check is score voting with negative weighting (2, 1, 0, -1, -2)
        • approval can only be done with temperature check threshold of 1 and minimum participation of 30% of active members
        • only editors can cast binding votes
        • need at least 3 editors to participate in the voting
        • without time limit, it gets approved when 3 editors have
        • feedback:
          • just one idea
          • really good, he likes it
          • bit more complicated, harder to grasp
      • proposal 3 (from Nick)
        • only editors can create proposals
        • 3 options for the timescale (3 days, 7 days, 14 days)
        • any editors can edit the proposal
        • no temperature checks
        • score voting with negative weighting (2, 1, 0, -1, -2)
        • anybody can vote
        • a minimum participation threshold of 3
        • after time period has passed if the score is > 0 (or >= 0), then the proposal is passed, otherwise rejected (they can always resubmit another proposal…)
        • feedback:
          • simpler than Brunos
          • more complicated than Vasileios’s
  • discussion: what happens after these features are implemented?
    • in the case of groups that have a more hierarchical structure, less participative. Different scenarios
      • they’d ignore it
      • they’d adapt to it and start using it
      • they’d leave Karrot
  • pick facilitator for next time
    • Bruno
  • check out


  • we were tired and slightly confused and other feelings/thoughts going on, but we felt proud that we got more clarity :slight_smile:

Date: 2021-02-18
Facilitator: Bruno
Participants: Vasilis, Katie, Bruno


  • check in
  • reviewing proposals on voting mechanism
    • question: choose one of the proposals or make a prototype for each of them?
    • Katie’s feedback:
      • is it necessary for only editors to create proposals? Makes sense for technical purposes, but not for community purposes. But maybe not an issue given new people won’t be so engaged
      • Likes the timescale
      • Was on board for the temp check on the beginning, but maybe too complex now. Having score voting may achieve what temp check proposed (given they can give neutral “0” voting).
      • Anybody can vote! Definitely
      • Low participation threshold for approval of proposal
      • Wonders if people would use the neutral vote, but likes the weighted system
      • Make visible proposal and voting so people can engage
    • Vasilis: trying to picture different scenarios for using agreements and voting, combining in-person and digital
      • how to take the in-person agreements and discussions and move them to the digital? Maybe some will never end up them
      • to give a voice to people who were not present at meetings, maybe better bringing the discussion/decisions to the digital. In Katie’s group: the admin people could be responsible for bringing that in
      • Katie: there is currently the question of were to put the agreements, so maybe it can be useful. Relying on the wall where things get lost.
      • Bruno: very important to keep in mind the combination of in-person meetings and the digital
      • Vasilis: let’s ask the groups! Maybe a questionnaire, interview or something…
      • Bruno: there’s a scenario of board meetings and decisions that might not fit well, but that’s fine, we want to have more ample democratic participation in the group
      • Katie: should probably not design for our cases, and maintain the values and culture of Karrot
      • Another scenario: agreement proposals being created before/during each meeting.
      • Bruno: maybe it’s useful to set a specific date related to in-person meetings?
    • Which proposals/ideals are we going to choose?
      • maybe we can test some different ideas on different prototypes
      • try both a more complicated and less complicated one and see what ideas come from the people
      • let’s think about other criteria as well that we didn’t include in the previous proposal: like anononymity, feedback on negative votes…
    • Proposal to go into the protoype (simplest)
      • only editors can submit proposals (katie doesnt morally agree, me neither, but it wont be a problem–> its easy to get karrots thus its ok)
      • timescale: minimum 1 week + suggestions + custom → pick a specific date
      • any editor can change the proposal.
        • What happens when there’s a change? Votes reset? Suggestion: people get a notification of the change and are asked to review their vote
      • no temperature check
      • everybody can vote
      • score voting with negative weighting (2, 1, 0, -1, -2)
      • anonymous voting
      • negative votes require a reason and they’re kept anonymous (“explain why you don’t like it”)
      • At least 5% of members should vote for an agreement to get approved
      • Proposal with a score >= 0 will be approved
  • pick facilitator for next time
    • Vasilis
  • check out


Date: 2021-03-04
Facilitator: Vasileios
Participants: Nick, Bruno, Katie, Vasileios


  • check in

    • notes on the landing page
      • main screenshot from foodsharing stockholm (its in english)
      • most probably there is not gonna be a problem to use it
    • Vasilis and Bruno landing page notes:
      • /welcome → landing page
      • access to the about page on the landing page (bofore log in) and accordingly when you are logged in
      • about page: a seperate page with texts and resources and links + some text existing on the current version of the landing page
      • what should we put into the about page:
        • texts…
        • resources → organize them by ways to participate (e.g. willing to participate as an activist, programmer, foodsaver etc)
          • mastodon
          • community forums
          • github
          • (maybe not?)
      • sceenshots (slideshow) u have to click or slide:
        - we got some screenshots
        - groups on karrot
        - activities
        - various types of activities (party, pickup,costum activity)
        - history
        - offers
    • Nick governance process
      Karrot Prototyping <–link
      - when proposing a new agreement → calendar for now when setting up for how long the agreement would be debated. If you select the current day → til midnight the same day
      - the prototype looks good so far. we suggested that we do not make it look like a finish design but keep it in a way that shows that there are possiblities

    • Katie tags attached to (proposed) agreements

    • Conflict resolution as a governance topic
      • intermediate sanctions
      • mediation of the conflict
      • how much work and how much capacity? which topics we want to prioritize?
    • We should identify the key areas we want to prioritize
      • thorugh the weekly meeting road map?
  • pick facilitator for next time 2021-03-11T12:00:00Z

    • Katie
  • check out


Date: 2021-03-11
Participants: Katie, Bruno, Nick, Vasileios

  • checkin

  • About page discussion

    • moving content from laning page to about page
    • pad: Meeting to discuss landing page, language, communication etc. - HedgeDoc
    • branch deployment (doesn’t have all the new content on yet)
    • about page
      • might take some of the stuff from the welcome/landing page
      • for people who might want to get involved, or know what kind of people/structure behind karrot
      • could also include values and vision, maybe towards the end of the page
      • could add a team page, but maybe later
      • how to describe getting involved / onboarding process
        • including the information directly in the about page makes it harder to change (and more likely it gets out of date)
        • getting in contact with one of us
        • maybe different profiles of people (e.g. devs, designers, community, academic, …)
        • idea/proposal: create a wiki forum post that has the definitive information
          • can link from the about page, or maybe even pull in the content via the discouse API
  • Nick will show progress on the protoyping

    • Solutions for saving data can be explored
    • Editing boxes seperatlely
    • Value tags can show the context
    • if proposal is changed would it reset vote?
    • what about submit button?
    • put voting at the end? to encourage them to read?
    • +1 for emoji voting
    • does the person who created the proposal get to vote?
    • split the proposal voting / chat page from the editing page
    • we didn’t think of how to get rid of an agreement…
  • paper/workshop (katie)

    • position paper for a small workshop around politics and technology in conjunction with the Annual Political Science Days in May 10th-12th at University of Helsinki
    • ~200 words
    • due by 14th March
    • Katie happen to write it, but not available for presenting it, Vasaleios and Bruno “WE CAN DO IT!!!”
    • maybe some content relevent from the NordiCHI
  • Working breakout

    • Just do it and report back next time
  • checkout

Actions and outcomes

  • create a how to get involved / onboarding wiki forum post (Nick to set up, others can jump in to edit)
  • Katie will share the next draft of the welcome page to get approval for the FS-STHLM Screenshots

Next meeting: 18/03
Facilitator: Bruno

Date: 2021-03-18
Faciliator: Bruno
Participants: Bruno, Nick

  • checkin
  • deployment and landing page
    • smaller PR with just some words + screenshot changed
  • prototype
    • add value tags?
      • Nick can work with the image from Katie and start trying out some user interface approaches
    • what else needed to try it out? (user testing)
      • should it be mobile first? maybe it can work ok on both
        • currently it’s ok on mobile except the discussion/voting/chat page
      • come up with a script/instructions for how to conduct a test
        • Kristin might give some input
  • checkout

Governance Design Process Meeting

Date: 2021-04-01
Facilitator: Katie
Participants: Katie, Nick, Vasileios

  • checkin

    • Vasileios has great weather but a bit stressed
    • Nick has experienced some heavy emotions lately but having a great morning!
    • Katie is a bit annoyed with work but enjoying the sun
  • state of prototype


      • Nick gave us a tour of the prototype so far
      • Making it more compatible with mobile.
      • Vasileios feedback: Bravo to Nick, wondering about the chat function. Suggestion for editing an existing agreement its nice to gave the option to add tags. It’s not so easy but should it be?
      • Nick wonders if we need to add some more descriptive explanations?
      • Make a manual
      • Who will we trust it with and how
    • “reason for proposal” still probably a bit confusing

    • add values

      • include the language a bit more instead of just boring “add values”, maybe work in the “this agreement will help to support… language”
      • can also include the language in the dialog, “To support …” “we encourage…”
      • it looks nice when they are added, so nice to include some of that style before any have been added
      • adding more radical values?
        • educative/performative role for karrot too
        • e.g. queerness, anarchism, degrowth
        • maybe groups then start discussing the topic?
      • a session to rethink the categories and the values
      • adding custom values
        • should they be available to other groups too? or maybe if we see a pattern we can add to the core ones
    • value tags interface?

      • Work on adding more values and refine the categories in line with the values of Karrot
    • last bits to finish up? (better mobile support)

    • user testing script?

      • ideas for tasks to ask them to complete
        • try to create an agreement about x
        • add in an existing agreement
        • select values to add, e.g. ones that appear in multiple
      • vary how many instructions we give them
      • watch them via screen-sharing, and ask them to describe what they’re doing as they do it
      • how to record the assessment?
        • make a framework for each task with a scale
          • e.g. could they complete the task easily, or with difficulties
        • and some qualitative data
        • trying to assess if the same issues are coming up repeatedly
      • Could we make a collaborative prototype? Nick says perhaps it is too complex
        • we can also do some followup interactions with the real feature once it’s in karrot
  • checkout

    • Nice balance between Karrot centred and more personal topics, good progress
  • Next facilitator: Vasileios

Actions and outcomes

  • refine prototype (Nick)
    • improve mobile/small screen behaviour (including separate button/whatever for the chat)
    • incorporate more of the values language in the interface, as discussed above
  • plan a session for refining the values and categories (?)
  • schedule a co-working session for user testing (?)
  • start working on user testing script (Katie & Vas)
  • plan and logistics of testing the prototype (Vas & … )

Governance Design Process Meeting

Date: 2021-08-04
Faciliator: Vasilis
Participants: Katie, Nick, Bruno

check in
From the last meeting

  • start working on user testing script (Katie & Vas & Bruno)
    • started a testing working plan
  • prototype (Nick)

from previous call

  • refine prototype (Nick)

    • improve mobile/small screen behaviour (including separate button/whatever for the chat) (done)
    • incorporate more of the values language in the interface, as disussed above (done)
  • plan a session for refining the values and categories (to do)

  • schedule a co-working session for user testing (to do)

  • start working on user testing script (Katie & Vas & Bruno)

    • I have started a testing working plan (Katie)
  • plan and logistics of testing the prototype (Vas & … )

Some notes/thoughts from Vasilis

  • Karrot prototype logistics
    • Finalize the prototype

    • One prototype (?)

    • Instructions text

    • Scenarios (bruno & katie got from the ground experience)

    • Mobile or not? or both?

    • Tasks for the users that going to test it?

    • Single user testing

    • Multiple users testing?

    • Single user testing (2 users from a group on the same time)

    • Which groups? Consider different organizing structures and culture of the groups and include some question for the background info
      Mentioned: Warsaw, Luxembourg, DLC in France, Robin Foods Austria
      Stockholm ← Katie
      Gothenburg ← bruno
      Less ‘traditional’ food sharing groups (e.g. community fridge kopenhagen) ← who and how we approach this group? (Katie said knows some people there)

    • How do we do the testing?
      call and we record their screen
      They do it on their own time and then they give us feedback
      Do we need sth like a consent form?
      How data are going to be used?
      Katie? Vasilis? Bruno? Nick? Will we use those date for writing sth?

    • Expectations?

    • Timeline?

new agenda points:

Katie’s notes on the prototype testing to be found here:

2 versions of prototype testing

  • have an empty canvas

    • bring a sample rule and plug it in to the system
  • propose an agreement

  • reviewing/voting/discussing/participating

  • who we recruit?

  • questionnaire: like a survey demographic

    • age: how comf people feel with technology (you get away from ageism)
    • the easiest to recruit → they can give us the less active
    • contact active and ask them to find less active (pyramid sampling)
      • stockholm
      • gotemburg
      • big groups active on the forum
        • warsaw? lux? efa? french groups (nantes) robin food (austria). Fællesskabet (KBH)
        • more top down groups
  • debriefing interviews after the prototype testing

    • what do we ask?
    • what have been looking for?
      • e.g. bruno: top down groups views on a more participatory approach
  • outcomes

    • katie will work on the scenarios
    • pilot test for the testing (vas, bruno…)
  • checkout

Actions and outcomes

  • refine prototype (Nick)
    • write sample agreements/proposals
      • maybe split the luxembourg one up to use as multiple sample agreements
    • (optional) include the section for vision/organisation boxes
  • work on the questionnaire for before the testing and the debriefing (Vas and Katie)
  • do a pilot test (Katie, Bruno)

How we move on?

Katie’s notes testing the prototype


  • Users should be english speaking, active members (with editing permissions) of a foodsharing group on Karrot.
  • We could aim for a sample of 10-15 participants for the first round of testing.

Desktop Testing environment:

  • Testing will be conducted using the most recent iteration of the prototype
  • We may also run A/B testing on different versions of the prototype e.g alternative voting methods text or slider
  • Testing will be conducted remotely on Jitsi or BigBlue Button where test participants will be provided with the link to the prototype and will share their screen while conducting the tasks.

Mobile Testing environment:

  • Testing will be conducted using the most recent iteration of the prototype
  • We may also run A/B testing on different versions of the prototype e.g alternative voting methods text or slider

Test Setup:

  • Welcome the user to the test and give them some background information and a brief explanation of what will be involved.
  • Have the user fill out a background questionnaire (approx. 5 questions, e.g. demographics, experience with Karrot, role in their foodsharing group, group culture etc)
  • Have the user sign consent for participating in the study and how you will manage their data.
  • Have users conduct each task while using the “Think aloud” protocol (audio/video record the session)
  • Observe the user as they conduct the tasks and take notes on what you see
    Conduct a short debriefing interview with the participant.

Features to test:

  1. Agreements
  2. Proposals
  3. Group vision and decision making?
  • Scenario 1: “out of the box”
    What kind of scenario do we want to test? Should we begin with a bank page experience where we assume that we have just implemented this feature to Karrot and users are exploring it for the first time?

  • Scenario 2: Working with e

  • Scenario 3: Revewing, Proposing, Discussing

Use Cases:

  1. Create a proposal from a sample (Participants own agreement)
  • From the home screen, navigate to the proposals page
  • Bring a rule from your group (Have a sample rule just in case)
  • From the home screen, navigate to the proposals page
  • Proposal you rule in the system
  1. Participate in an exisiting proposal (Our sample proposals)
  • From the home screen, navigate to the proposals page
  • Select an existing proposal (from 2, one boring and one provocative)
  • Read the proposal
  • Make a comment
  • Cast your vote
  1. Change an existing agreement (Our sample agreement)
  • From the home screen, navigate to the agreements page
  • Select an existing agreement
  • Read the agreenent
  • Propose a change

Background questionnaire Questions

approx. 5 questions

  • demographics,
  • experience with Karrot,
  • role in their foodsharing group,
  • group culture etc

Debriefing Interview Questions

  • Language
  • Values

Documenting and analysing results

  • Present the results of the test detailing any successes and/or failures the user has had with conducting the tasks and their overall experience.
  • Write an analysis of the results detailing any usability issues detected and why they may have occurred

Next meeting 15/4
Facilitator: Katie

Date: 2021-08-15
Faciliator: Nick
Participants: Vasilis, Nick, Kristin, Bruno

  • duration (max 1h for Kristin, 1h30 maybe for the rest)

  • checkin

  • introduction with/from Kristin

    • Comments from Kristin: high-fidelity prototype. Never done a prototype like this. Complex issue and wants to know how we tested and then tell how she’d test it. Seems clear how we want to proceed.
    • Nick’s open to big changes if that’s the case, depending on the feedback
    • Recruitment of people already using Karrot
    • Comments about the duration of our design process (diffrences between business-setting and open-source voluntary)
  • what we’ve done so far…

    • Governance Meeting Notes - #26 by Vasilis_Ntouros
    • includes the first draft of the user testing script
    • initial questions, “talk aloud” protocol, tasks to do
    • feedback from Kristin
      • in general, a common way to do it
      • starting with a familiar scenario
      • not being too specific with instructions
      • asking questions in the beginning
      • probably not worth testing with people who are not familiar with karrot already
      • live?
      • good to have two people, one to lead the talk, and then visitors to observe. after that the two people can discuss.
      • the moderator can then ask the visitors if they have more questions during it
      • can do it with just one person, recording video/audio, audio is actually sufficiently mostly, especially with immediate debrief
      • usually testing 3 people, literature says 5, but 3 ok for “quick and dirty”
      • afterwards come together as a group, then from all notes select 3 very good things to make these very clear, then 3-5 most important issues (could be technical/design/etc) that were troublesome
      • the recording can be nice, but prefer to do more low-effort tests more than record more, then can change things and test again…
      • question: more meta conversations to have afterwards?
        • e.g. would it make the group more democratic
        • a good idea! but problem with asking vs showing, observing vs listening. people sometimes say things are fine, when observing can reveal more information.
        • people are biased and say “yes it’s very nice!” but not clear if they will use it
      • question: we do collect some usage data, but struggle to make use of it
        • need more clear definitions of what we’re trying to achieve
        • e.g. using it every day (maybe for whatsapp, but not for all apps)
  • feedback from test we run with a member of Solikyl (Gothenburg group)
    - difficulties with quantitive vs qualitative
    - finding out if they are happy using it can only really be collected qualitatively
    - question/reflection: recruiting different types of people, two profiles: “active” people (who would write proposals), and “less active” (we want to make it easier for these people to participate more), idea to ask active people to also bring in someone less active to do user testing?
    - usually use incentives, e.g. a lunch, some yummy jam
    - in this kind of project, seems nice idea to get people to ask someone else
    - would not ask beginners to use the prototype as it is, due to complexity of the feature, perhaps trying out the whole app
    - maybe can find a nice incentive for a short as possible user test, usually people like being asked :slight_smile: and people enjoy expressing their opinion
    - question: about having different types of sample data?
    - this is more about the content though, not the feature, so not so important
    - if we have multiple versions, “tinder testing”, “swipe left/right” concept for getting feedback from quick questions that can be put to people
    - risk to try and have too much control where we don’t really have it in our prototype… some things might work better inside the app later…
    - our prototype is very advanced right now, so hard to do small incremental adoption
    - would not make any singificant changes now before next user test, maybe just minor ones
    - writing notes after each user test right away, even if debrief happens later
    - creating summary at the top of the notes with the main points, including things like quotes from the person for personal touch
    - trying to include the whole team too, e.g. including developers

    • bruno was faciliator, vasileios was visitor, and did a chat later
    • was nice to get over the technical hurdles that came up
    • was interesting with Joakim, when he wanted to make a proposal, he used the edit text like a chat box rather than just editing it :slight_smile:
  • reflections from chat with Kristin

    • not making big changes on prototype, just small bits
    • should lower the number of participants we aim for, perhaps 5, not 15
      • had noticed from a previous user testing how much we got from so few
    • perhaps background perspective of making things “fast and easy” for users different in karrot (democratizing processes in karrot)
    • keeping a balance of usable, but not necesarily “easy” (democracy is not easy)
    • perhaps don’t need incentives, as karrot is built on voluntary open contributions
    • could think more about this scenario usage (to “provoke”), but also realising the real testing will be in real life when it actually happens, but could try something within the prototype, making the test subjects into people with their own thoughts :slight_smile:
      • already got some feedback that he might be using it differently as it’s not a real scenario, not getting into the context, only the feature
    • perhaps general principle that the people are not just there to be tested, political framing of user testing
    • aligns with Karrot’s ideas on how to bring forward the social and political context, a challenge to traditional user testing
    • user testing as user participation, it can still make sense to a bigger complex feature
    • could have we broken down the feature to smaller parts?
  • putting everything on forum

  • wondering about refining our interview script

    • especially the feedback and discussions from today
  • checkout

  • Next facilitator: Vasileios

  • Next meeting: 2021-04-22

Actions and outcomes

  • start another thread “Stage 5: Testing” on the forum and put the interview script there (Vasileios/Bruno, race!)
  • include notes from tests on the forum as well (all? for the future)
  • rework agreements page to have “approved/proposals” tabs inside the agreements page + change new proposal button to say “propose new agreement” (and perhaps put it at the top) + fix the width issue with the chat (Nick)
  • refine the interview script based on meeting content (?)
  • consider conducting another user interview, e.g. Daniel (?)

Notes from first testing here: Stage 5: Testing the prototype - #2 by bruno

Date: 2021-04-22
Faciliator: Vasileios

Participants: Nick, Vasileios, Katie, Bruno

Preparation for the test we run with a member from Stockholm group

Katie is the facilitator
Nick is the observer
Vasilis and Bruno also take notes if they stay in the call
We ask the participant if it’s OK for them, all 4 of us to stay in the call
If so, we can all ask questions to the participant at the very end based on our notes
All 4 for us stayed in the call finally

-observation notes from this user testing are here: Stage 5: Testing the prototype - #3 by Vasilis_Ntouros

reflections on the testing session

  • making sure steps to follow make sense and use the right words
  • maybe introducing the session more
  • understanding the context of the group could be helpful with introductory questions
    • understanding how active the user is in the group
  • adding more context into the prototype
    • instead of having people write “testtesttest” kind of text
    • so maybe having sample rules elsewhere they can use so they can engage more with the prototype
    • maybe making a story context for people to be in with more general scenarios
      • maybe works better in the context of a user test group feature
  • values text/language/input
    • sometimes the “we will support x by encouraging y” sometimes doesn’t make a good connection, doesn’t read good
  • writing a comment in the proposal text
    • maybe having a task to add a specific point
    • editing the “whole thing” seems maybe odd
  • voting
    • not clear the voting had been done
    • maybe some feedback to show you have voted! (and that you can change it later as the discussion/proposal evolves)
    • maybe having a counter to show how many votes so far
  • discussions
    • still a bit to the side, maybe it could be more like a wall below?
    • discussions on approved agreements
  • proposals/agreements
    • making the proposals really clear
    • maybe proposals as the first tab, or different colours, or one page showing the proposals at the top
    • or a “notification number” on the proposals tab to make it more visible
  • different scenarios
    • fresh start where they are no agreements, wondering how people make sense of the feature
    • … also the one where there are existing proposals for an easier start
    • they might want “import existing agreement” at the future, but don’t need to add it into the prototype, they can use short duration proposal…
  • discussions with a clear resolution is a really nice focus
    • common to lose out if you aren’t in a thread, as it’ll fall off the bottom
    • then it’ll peter out without closure
    • could be nice to unify conflict resolution + agreement process, as it might not be clear at the start of a discussion what the outcome should be…
    • maybe can nudge users within threads to start proposals/discussions/etc
  • next steps
    maybe ask one more person for this round of testing
    then we can run some more contextual testing, with wider context
  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-04-29
Next facilitator: ??

Date: 2021-05-13
Faciliator: Nick
Participants: Vasilis, Nick, Katie, Bruno

  • agree duration 1h40
  • checkin
  • move governance discussions to Karrot group?
  • review / reflect on our 3 user tests to make next steps…
    • Stage 5: Testing the prototype - #4 by bruno
    • confusion between approved and proposed agreements
      • one idea from Karolina: put the proposed on the left, maybe some notification (badge)
    • maybe get rid of the summary, or making it optional
      • make the box smaller, both for summary and reason to change
    • reason to change only when proposing a change
    • one way to solve the question about authorship and people not feeling comfortable changing each other’s texts
      • make it possible to write only on reason to change and not edit the content of the agreement itself
    • how to discuss an approved agreement?
      • maybe the model of issues and pull request on Github
      • interesting when something happens (issue) and the outcome is not clear. Outcome could be a conflict resolution, a new agreement, etc.
    • more general purpose discussion + decision making
      • an “action button” that you can take an existing discussion whereever it is happening (e.g. on the wall), to spawn a new “proper” discussion to then do something, with the ability to then see where it came from
  • how do we proceed? do some small changes and implement, or do another round of user testing?
    • Nick is fine with both options
    • Katie agrees. Do some small adjustment, get rid of the values. And then do one or two testings
    • Vasilis agrees with Katie. Do a couple of more interviews. Do we set a deadline? Do we have the energy to keep working on it? We do have time to work more on changes, maybe even the “github scenario”
    • Bruno. A bit more wanting to get stuff done and out there, but can see perspectives from others, so could be useful!
  • redesign a little
    • make proposals more prominent
      • maybe with “notification icon”, or at the top of the list
    • removing the “reason” for new proposals?
    • remove values? (maybe one day incorporate it more in thte context of the whole group)
      • a simpler one level version of it
      • maybe make it clear that they are the values of the group (faked in the prototype of course)
      • include some fun/anti-values?
    • adding (optional) bits to optional things… (reason, summary)
    • making summary smaller?
    • making it clear/possible that people don’t need to actual make changes to the text initially… could just include their “comment” in the reason field
      • maybe explicit choose for whether to make concrete changes?
      • if no changes proposed, then make that clear on the proposal edit, and not possible to vote until a change has been made…
  • anarchist cybernetics?
  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-05-20
Next faciliator:

Actions and outcomes

  • refine prototype based on ideas mentioned above (nick)
  • … depending on progress of that, schedule some more user tests! (anyone)

Date: 2021-05-20
Faciliator: Nick & Bruno
Participants: Nick, Bruno

  • agree duration
  • checkin
  • we had a more casual chat about
    • local organisations we are involved with and how to critically reflect on organisational structures
    • Stafford Beers viable systems model in relation to the anarchist cybernetics book
  • foodsharing festival presentation
    • 31st May 7:30pm CEST
    • would like it quite participatory
    • uncertainty about how many people
    • polls could be nice for larger numbers
    • breakout rooms nicer to get more active
      • feed them some discussion points
      • then feedback to main room
      • 4-6 people per breakout room
    • duration? 1h in programme
      • extended time at the end could be nice?
    • storytelling first part
      • story / context / history
      • engaging? using poll?
      • questions about?
        • admin roles? ambassadors? store managers? etc…
          • real life examples of how that works?
          • “it might never happen” + history feature, not so much malicious
      • make a karrot group for the event, so people can try it out! live participation!
        • give a task to them?
      • beyond foodsaving/sharing?
    • how to progress?

  • working on prototype? … or at least next steps
    • next steps to build are already clear, so let’s see how that goes…
  • move governance discussions to Karrot group?
  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-05-27
Next faciliator:

Actions and outcomes

  • Ask Katie and Vasilis whether we should change the time/day for the meeting
  • Have a chat/call with Renata about VSM

Governance Design Process Meeting

Date: 2021-05-27
Facilitator: Nick + Katie + Bruno
Participants: Nick, Katie, Bruno

  • agree duration up to 1h30
  • checkin
  • structure a pad for the anarchist cybernetics reading group
    • karrot anarchist cybernetics reading group - HedgeDoc
    • two parts:
      • commenting ideas from the book itself, per chapter
      • trying to connect the ideas to karrot or other experiences in organising, stuff we’ve seen or participated in
        • karrots design, what we have and what could be done
    • quite free chatting, and try to organise notes
    • loose structure that we can follow if we need it, but don’t need to stick to
      • prompts:
        • something you liked
        • something you didn’t like
        • some connection to karrot
  • add a bit of content in the pad
  • a little plan for the prototype going forward
    • ideas for the concrete changes are there
    • nick needs to implement them
    • some more user testing …
    • what do we do then?
      • reflect on any further issues?
      • reach out to groups more widely to test prototype?
        • even if just consider for next iteration
      • make a github issue and wait for a developer?
        • = “developer ready”
      • some summarised outputs
        • the design process for our new governance features
          • a bit about the process
          • and the features themselves
        • meta stuff about the process itself
        • being away of different publics
          • people who want the feature
          • some people about the process itself
      • academic paper at some point :slight_smile:
  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-06-03
Next facilitator: Katie

Actions and outcomes

  • try and find a book club time for chicago-compatible time (Nick)
    • bruno after 7pm swedish time? (but a bit tired)
    • or another day…