Governance Meeting Notes

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…

Date: 2021-08-05
Facilitator: self-facilitated
Participants: Nick, Bruno, Dave

  • agree duration 1h30 max
  • checkin
  • trial activities + roles + skills + stuff
    • Applicant trial pickup proposal
    • idea from Dave in Karrot
      • customized roles
      • skills matching (users specify their skills, and activities can say required skills)
      • skills would be scoped within the roles
        • e.g. gardening role would open up skills of planting, etc
      • would it make sense with our trust for role idea?
        • if it has a nice overview of information on what they’ve done
          • this helps people get the context for a person
        • maybe like gameification skill levels
      • maybe create a nice little design process for this?
        • smaller process than our last one
        • defining the problem, what we’re trying to solve
        • some sketches
        • where to collect all the info?
      • keeping one level more abstract than each group
      • defining the roles at the group level
        • how much structure in roles/skills?
        • some more openness in skills?
          • how to get the balance of detail for matching
      • a simplified version more like badges? (with a title)
      • already have preferred activities (from favourited places)
      • understanding roles are functional hierarchy (not power hierarchies)
      • roles-based matching could go quite far already
        • activities with required roles and people with roles
    • development/design capacity?
    • reflection? academic paper?
      • Vasilis/Katie/more? doing a paper still? discuss when they are around
      • can have meeting to reflect on how the process went
      • some idea of making a website to share/network on community software design processes
    • how to actually build it (agreements feature)?
      • what should we define to support developers to build it?
      • trying to get more concrete
      • add an issue in karrot-frontend to describe it
      • having the prototype should make a huge difference
      • probably stays looking for a developer until Nick is back at least…
  • Thursday meetings, what’s happening now?
    • Vasilis will be away most of August
    • Nick is leaving mid-August
    • maybe Katie is back?
    • can we keep it going?
    • should decide what to actually do from now on, get some focus
    • still would be nice to do reflection, paper, etc… on the last design process
    • … and what kind of process would we use for the next features (like a template)
      • can make it so people can actually create their own processes
    • open invite to more too, e.g. Dave
  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-08-12
Next facilitator: ?

Actions and outcomes

  • write an issue for agreements feature (Nick)

Date: 2021-08-12
Facilitator: The Invisible Hand of the Meeting
Participants: Bruno, Nick, Dave

  • agree duration ~40m more ish
  • checkin
  • user testing FS Lund
    • replied after some time
    • also with a non-male participate as we wanted
    • perhaps won’t impact our outcomes so much now, as we mostly reached the end of the process
    • … but each person always gives new perspectives
    • Bruno up for leading, Nick up for witnessing/note taking
  • Dave’s mockups for roles
    • Karrot
    • maybe some roles could be trust based, and others not?
    • maybe have it so people can opt-in to choose which role they desire
      • then in the interface can make that clear, that they are looking for trust there
      • … and can pair up people with activities that require role + open activities
    • … but first the minimal version
    • badge system?
      • relation to roles?
      • making clearer in the ui which roles/badges a user has (e.g. inside profile photo)
  • hackathon planning
    • online in the winter
    • Dave has done some designs
    • maybe finding a theme/motivation
    • and a more detailed roadmap
    • we can talk about our capacity, and future thoughts in the community cafe
      • roles
      • bigger ideas about “breaking the silo”
        • e.g. public links
  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-08-19
Next facilitator: ?

Actions and outcomes

  • Answer Wrick confirming the user testing (Bruno)

Governance Design Process Meeting

Date: 2021-09-02
Facilitator: Vasilitator
Participants: Bruno, Vasilis

  • agree duration

  • checkin

  • Notes from all user testings

    • Confusion between approved/existing agreements and proposals and where to find them (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

      • needs clarity with terms
      • both the approved and the proposal/discussion are visible on different tabs. Confusion between what is the agreements that needs to followed in a group at the time (bruno)
    • who gets to edit and social norms about it (1, 3)

      • only editors? (6)
      • timeline and showing the author of a change would be better (6)
    • notifications, how would it work? (2)

    • notification that sb voted (1)

    • negative voting

      • explanation should be clearer (4)
      • does not preserve anonymity (6)
    • where would discussions take place? On the agreements proposals, wall, or somewhere else outside Karrot? (2, 3, 4)

    • Voting vs having a say (2)

    • reminder to re-evaluate proposals periodically (5)

    • how many should vote for an agreement to pass (3)

    • propose changes (can change title and summary?) (Vas)

    • should we have a discussion under approved agreements? (4)

    • “because I made it, I cannot do resistence voting” (didn’t notice warning) (5) → a hover message over the disabled butons

    • not clear: propose change → choice between “Start the discussion first” and “Propose Changes first” (Bruno)

      • instead of “start a discussion”, could be “open for discussion” (5)
    • wondering how the summary will be displayed (6) <–could there be a display option before posting the changes/suggestions?

    • “depends how I want to work” when thinking about discussion first, or proposing changes first (6) → propose a change does not exclude starting up a discussion as well

  • Guidelines for creating an issue on github for the development of the agreements feature

  • Solutions/changes to be made

  • should be changed
    - “Proposals/Approved”
    - get rid of the tabs
    - all agreemetns and proposals on the same page, as a list
    - proposals should appear on top
    - add a filter “All, Only proposals, Only approved”
    - highlight approved as ‘stamped’ and maybe add a “check” icon
    - maybe use an icon, a visual cue, for the proposals which indicates that they are ‘open’ for discussion/edits

  • Propose change to approved agreement
    - Instead of “Open Details” put “Show More”?
    - Add button “Start a discussion” next to “Propose Change”, instead of clicking first on “Propose Change” and then “Start a discussion”.
    - When interacting with a proposal use “Propose change” instead of “edit proposal”

  • Make it clearer why people cannot vote negatively without commenting
    - maybe a hover message over the disabled butons?
    - maybe a warning message when trying to vote (resistance/strong resistance)?

    • Clearer vote confirmation
      • maybe a toast “Your vote has been casted”
    • Show somewhere information about the votes needed to approve an agreement/change
      • specs here: Stage 3: Making a Decision - #4 by nicksellen
      • percentage: 5% of members should vote for an agreement to be approved
      • show the score of each voting option (e.g. neutral=0, strong resistance = -2 etc) and provide an explanation/information on how votes are counted
      • take a look at the conflict resolution feature and make it consistent. Maybe improve explanations/information on the conflict resolution feature too
  • how the feature will appear on Karrot
    - On the sidenav menu, an item called agreements
    - We should probably discuss a redesign of the whole sidenav menu, which items appear

  • Notifications
    we probably never discussed how it should work but we suggest:
    - Bell notifications for everybody whenever an agreement is created, opened for discussion/changed and approved (or not?)
    - Discussions/Conversations about an agreement: only to the person who created/changed an agreement and those who participate in the conversation either on chat via editing
    - Should there be a reminder (x days left to decide the agreement)?

    • would be nice to have/change

      • when sb applies to a group would be nice to be informed about the agreements/rules a group has approved
    • Other notes/thoughts

      • what happens with existing very simple agreements? (1)
      • first move all the rules to Karrot which is good (everyone has Karrot, not Facebook) (3)
        • its sort of a confirmation
      • how would this new feature adjust to karrot?
      • when somebody joins, something they should read? (2)
      • who can vote (2) only trusted? not karrot trusted can leave a comment?
        • everyone can vote

Actions and outcomes

  • make a post on karrot group activity on Thursday: we discuss about the design process in general, feedback, reflections, thoughts blabhabla

    • post notes on forum (monday and last thursday)
    • issue on github
  • pick next facilitator

  • checkout
    Next date: 2021-13-09
    Next facilitator: ??

Governance Design Process Meeting

Date: 2021-09-09
Facilitator: Bruno
Participants: Bruno, Katie, later Dave

  • agree duration 15:30
  • checkin
  • Notes:
  • Reflections
    • we did more like in the design thinking framework, long-term instead of a sprint
    • the defining characteristic of a sprint is to do it multiple times
    • it was good but it felt long, we lost a bit of steam in the middle
    • are there other design frameworks and methodologies that would fit better our case?
    • many more meetings for doing the prototype
    • the community vibe that we had while designing was probably reflected on the final “product”
      • it gave us time to reflect and think together
      • no pressure to be productive, no feeling of being assessed/evaluated
    • how much should we push things forward when we feel that it’s going slow or getting stuck?
      • are we ever gonna finish?
    • loosing interest and motivation towards the end, but feels refreshing maybe after a break or if someone comes back with renewed energy
    • we wished to connect more with the groups to participate in the design processes
    • let’s see what kind of design process we apply for the next topic and which one that will be. Possible candidates:
      • roles feature
      • “breaking the silo” topic

Actions and outcomes

  • pick next facilitator
  • checkout

Next date: 2021-09-16
Next facilitator: we’ll see! :slight_smile:

Date: 2021-09-16
Facilitator: ourselves
Participants: Bruno, Vasilis

  • agree duration 1h
  • checkin
  • Discussion points
    • reflection on the design process
      • we should spend some time jotting down some ‘principles’ at some point
      • redo a list on ‘principles/values/reminders’
    • issue → votes when a proposal is re-edited
      • suggestion: people get a notification that a change has been made on an existing proposal:‘check if you want to keep your vote’
      • we keep it as an open question as it appears on the issues on github
    • funding from NLnet
      • Vas will share Nick’s and Bruno’s mail so we ‘remove’ noise
    • community cafe
      • Post on the place wall (will we do a community cafe this month?)

Actions and outcomes

For next meeting, write down a little list of principles/reminders(?) of how to design for Karrot. For example:

  • E.g. 1 we design having in mind end-users appropriations (end user development) → we design a malleable infrastructure

  • E.g. 2 we design a permeable infrastructure (different groups can be independent however they can easily interact among each other)

  • E.g. 3 we design a multi-purpose platform (more than foodsharing groups)

  • E.g. 4 we design for groups not individuals

  • E.g. 5 do we aim at moving people out of social media like FB?

  • etc.

  • pick next facilitator

  • checkout

Next date: 2021-09-23 (perhaps, uncertain for both Vas and Bruno)
Next facilitator: