mostly men attending calls, including call visitors who drop in
also a few things noted about male-ish behaviours on calls
chatting on personal level about gender
could find ways within design to not reinforce stereotypes
how to make karrot more queer-friendly
we talked about the tokenist version as well, having quotas, gender diversity but all the women are doing sevice roles and men eng work,
we don’t look into ethnicity topics, neurodiverisity
connect with an org to do a workshop to explore the topic deeper
Butze: is worth exploring
Bruno: interested in propositions, what can be done
NLnet updates
everything is sorted, a bit to check
got an email saying that it is all signed
Nick’s work (Karrot’s haircut and more)
obv doing a lot of work atm, would like karrot to be the only soft project I do, in my morals makes sense to work on Karrot, only one put that amount of time, work on a team, doing work on the detail, calls and work outside, I m mostly pushing through requests on my own, I d like that in Karrot, we have nice disucssion philosophy layer, higher level topics is nice exchange, material work gots a gap in there, for me I enjoy doing work, get stuff done.
redesign
should it be an experiment or go forward with it?
proposal: go forward
reactions:
it’s pretty!
like it too
like it, consent!
official consent round:
check in with Nathalie
would like some beta-testing to see if it’s working, it affects a bit functionality
michigan student joining
no-one had replied to their application, wrote on the forum during the call, reached to Butze as well,
Nick has no capacity to give assistance at this moment unfortunately. There’s also a bad past experiene with university students looking to engage and disappearing later and not delivering anything
change policy:
change getting started guide to give the right message for undergrad students
review it next week
siegen prep
Nick communicating to Elisa and making her feel welcome
what are our intentions?
Nick: see what others are into and start a design task for NlNet
Butze: would like to know when Elisa is coming and get a room for her
Bruno, Daniel and Nick would get Butze’s flat, Nathalie at Leoni’s and find a place for Elisa
Daniel stated what his intentions are
defining with foodsharing team what they want to work on and doing a more fixed schedule
there is space for open discussions, communal events, so it doesn’t feel like Karrot and FS are working totally separate
have a pre-hackaton call with Karrot people
brunso intentions
spend time together bonding
do some nlnet related tasks
have a nice collective sense of plan, orientation for Karrot
connect with foodsharing people, getting to know each other, maybe something more solid might come out of it
Next meeting:
co-op cloud federation
policy/rules/agreement library
chatting with ntnsndr (Nathan Schneider)
5. Actions/Outcomes
continue work on navigating upcoming activities [Bruno, Nick]
write feedback and reflections on suggesting Karrot to parents coop [Bruno]
work on forum post comparing/contrasting foodsharing/karrot [Nathalie]
write to gerben and ask about follow-on eu funding potentials [Nick]
membership payment coop-cloud [Nick]
put the fully signed MoU somewhere [Nick]
check in with Nathalie on Karrot’s new design [Nick]
tell student we can’t take anyone on for now [Butze]
change getting started guide to give the right message for undergrad students [?]
organise a pre-hackathon karrot-focused pre-prep meeting [?]
Date: 2024-04-16 on Karrot
Facilitator: Vasilitator
Minutes: all
Participants: Nathalie, Bruno, Jay, Butze, Nick, Vasilis
1. Opening
10 min Check in
5 min ADMIN
attendance (write down participants)
duration: 11 CEST, Nick, Jay and Butze leave at 10:30
information: any (non-karrot) announcements? unavailabilities?
next meeting: weekly meeting and co-working
pick facilitator for next week: Bruno (tentative)
2. Consent to agenda
2 min
3. Review last week’s Actions/Outcomes
continue work on navigating upcoming activities [Bruno, Nick]
write feedback and reflections on suggesting Karrot to parents coop [Bruno]
work on forum post comparing/contrasting foodsharing/karrot [Nathalie]
did not work on that. I would like to involve the fs ppl so added that to the hackweekend schedule. free slot sat aftenoon, 45mins. finish the draft
write to gerben and ask about follow-on eu funding potentials [Nick]
membership payment coop-cloud [Nick]
put the fully signed MoU somewhere [Nick]
put it in the discourse chat randomly, it is somewhere
prev made a public post
check in with Nathalie on Karrot’s new design [Nick]
try some co-working on it during the siegen, work in progress
tell student we can’t take anyone on for now [Butze]
sent a message
2 questions from Nathalie:
open application on the KTaF group we should do sth with
refered to a task assigend to me, shortcuts task and got a bit unsure how much they ve started to work on that
I dont remember chatting, not very responsive to communication [nick], created more confusion, havent seen any code, indication of ‘progress’, nothing we can do atm, if there is some com u can ask [butze] if they started working on anything
look at it in Siegen
change getting started guide to give the right message for undergrad students [Vasilis]
summary is that we dont have capacity for dev contruvutiosn but HCIish things yes
4. Discussion points
Siegen hackathon last questions
what to bring
refers to sleeping bags, sleeping mats
arrive and then allocate
try to make things as flexible as possible,
everyone can stay in Butzer’s apt and the fablab works
flexible with multigen house
Nathalie can also stay at the multigen house to avoid cat allergy
time schedule
thursday nothing scheduled yet. Do we wanna do something?
Vas prefers morning sessions. Quite flexible except Friday 1pm
Jay works in the morning and a couple of hours after lunch (Thu, Fri, Mon)
thursday as an arriving day
nick will get some tech things to make vas present more convinient :D! thanks nick!
karrot ritual? initiate the congregation
co-op cloud federation
latest decision:
Large Decision 022: Budget 10: Abra integration suite automation - 2024-04-04
Deadline for votes is Thursday, 18th April – let me know if you need more time to vote than that.
we joined, we ll pay the money, participate in the votes, all disc, negotiations on a matrix chanel, if anyone wants to be another person from Karrot (except for Nick).
how are we deciding and voting?
there is a specific vote
incomprehensible tech things mostly
suggestion would be: everytime there is a vote I put on the Karrot group
nick as a delegate on the coop cloud fed [Nathalie].
not much to add [bruno], agree with Nick’s proposal
check in after a few months
have an overaching summary of what coop-cloud is and
policy/rules/agreement library
a disc on the main wall, down down scroll scroll,
discussion with Nathan Schneider
on the topic of governance,
policy rules with an open API, for example we got the agreements feature which we want t furhter develop, with Katie
now interconnecting projects, and platforms, library of some kind
templates, existing agremeents, projects, adapt, prefilled forms
was talking about where to get started with development
had own ideas, also would like to know what are priorities
went through the feedback forum section and how to choose something
using own motivation to choose something
have a little process for choosing development tasks in the weekly meetings
previously nick went through tasks, then based on some criteria would choose something
maybe it would make sense to do that process, or is there something in mind already? or focus on nlnet tasks
proposition:
my tasks can have two sources
nick assigns to jay that seems relevant
I come up with idea and talk to developer team (aka nick) to make sure it makes sense
reflections on the process (how to assign tasks to development team):
bruno:
from governance perspective and also design and values
where are the boundaries of deciding on tasks and assigning compared to others outside the development team
some things are clearly questions for developers, e.g. updates, without direct repercussion on usability and how users experience it
on the other end of spectrum, developing a whole new feature, need to work through with community, maybe a design process, and weekly meeting discussion
we had criteria, all took a look at the board, not just for development, but other kinds of tasks, good to keep the process and the clarity
maybe thinking in sociocractic ways, teams/circles, a certain mandate for a circle/working group/subteam, etc. important for them to keep that autonomy, and some things might be a bigger scope involving others
been a long standing topic, how to organise karrot, and governance system, would be nice to define for other people contributing in non-development tasks
nick:
also thinking about the sociocratic circle, a clear mandate to the dev circle, and what is to the general circle
fine defining a task for Jay now
also liked the process to define the tasks
we’ve also got the NlNet tasks ahead, so maybe no need to do that process now
jay:
not much to add
everything said sounds good
butze:
seems to be summarized well, thanks for bruno for bringing it up
Nick’s contribution
one epiphany is that need to activate burnout avoidance mode
works a bit frenetically some times
needs to spend a bit less time, but more focused time
be a bit more clear on what needs to do
what are his responsibilities? maybe a process for everyone
for example taking care of the server or responding to e-mails
ongoing responsibilities and tasks, loads of them!
could use board on forum for the tasks, but also codeberg, where it could be more detailed
more focus on the “Ready for development”
round:
bruno:
thinking
would create some more structure, maybe it’s needed
gives a bit more support and focus for all of us
up for trying that
not sure on details or how to proceed
could look at codeberg
board on discourse is quite full and could do with some organising
maybe codeberg is useful for more development detail
could be once moving tasks into ready for development could go to codeberg?
butze:
very good to come to this ephipany, honest and vulnerable, have to take care of self
have to figure out how to support you in this, and get some of the tasks more distributed
see some more capacities for myself coming up, end of june onwards after thesis is submitted, then need new tasks!
jay:
really good idea to keep track of the tasks that are currently being developed and who is working on them, esp. if wanting to expand team of developers
nick:
likes to recognize the limitations in capacities
would like solve everyone’s problems but also needs to say no
looking at codeberg features
currently github for operational things
maybe a working session to figure it out
also to make clear for others whether we want to prioritize something
could work more during co-working…
started time tracking karrot work
want to only work when on a specific/assigned task
What to do with github repo?
was wondering what’s up with that? Do we keep pull requests? Usefullness in keeping it? Any thoughts?
Nick can give some useful info/context: everything is migrated to Codeberg, mirrored with Codeberg to update, turned off the issues, but all the links broke, got links all around the forum (important context), makes the project look active atm, you can archive the project on Git, was thinking to replace/have a message saying that “move to codeberg”. Sometmes ppl say dont’ open issues here but on Codeberg. Asked to chat with some prof to ask to take us out of their student assignments list.
Proposal: stop mirroring, replace it with a msg saying its migrated to Codeberg
bruno:
yes, also brought it up as I was away when the move to codeberg happened
doesn’t look like it makes much sense to keep the GitHub repo
see the history point
consent to the proposal
confusing to have both, just have one official one
vasilis:
hear what nick is saying, record of issues, and removing it leads to broken links
did issues migrate? yes issues in codeberg, but still lots of links to github
accept proposal, maybe also archive it
if we add a note on readme page? maybe worth writing a line explaining the reasons we move, that is to some extent a political decision
butze:
all fine
jay:
agree to archiving, better to have it all in one place, easier to find
nick:
stop mirroring, put warning messages, and archive the repo on Github
vasilis:
would love to manually replace the github links to codeberg links, and look through the issues too in the process
next time:
review money amounts
check notes what we said last time
for when butze is back from hawaii:
membership for butze process
5. Actions and Outcomes
continue work on navigating upcoming activities [Bruno, Nick]
write feedback and reflections on suggesting Karrot to parents coop [Bruno]
write to gerben and ask about follow-on eu funding potentials [Nick]
membership payment coop-cloud [Nick]
change getting started guide to give the right message for undergrad students [Vasilis]
summary is that we dont have capacity for dev contributions but HCIish things yes
summarize design session on polls [Bruno]
notes and actions items from Siegen on the forum [Nathalie]
continue working on draft for a vision [Bruno]
do mine and Jays travel cost payments [Nick]
start evaluation of task/board system, maybe adding other topics/tasks [Nick, maybe Jay]
a good general text, easy to comprehend for people in Karrot project or used to alternative circles
for people not in alternative circles, maybe hard to comprehend what it actually means, e.g. “what is the money circle?”
says describe an agreement for each contributor, but what would it look like? amount of money, could make it more tangible
in second paragraph there is an explanation of how we see money, would move that into the beginning, “How do we perceive money”, so add some headings, preface, process, how we get to outcomes. with the goal to help outsiders to understand it better
Nathalie:
I like it a lot
saw we made a few amendments from initial draft
feel like it makes sense
like this second paragraph, feels quite honest, e.g. within our financial capacities
two minor points:
practicalities of money circle, usually takes place in the weekly meeting, not after it
a bit more tangible about how we do things, could mention opencollective, e.g. “all money is collected by our fiscal host and visible on our opencollective”
like the sense we have one collection of money, and we had some confusion before about whether to have extra agreements
nice sense to collect all the money from all the sources (not thinking about who brought it in), and then redistributing it
agree with butze, as the agreement could just be amount of money
Nick:
likes it
balance between dreamy vision (working from our hearts) and lived realities, we touch both parts of that
broadly made sense to me
guideline: what do we mean by this, e.g. the 3 categories for contribution, we’re open to have discussion about others
guideline could mean different things to different people
external work not reflected here, difference between core work and ‘external’ work, nothing to add here, but reflecting that not all situation are covered (where there is an overlap in projects)
‘in the meeting’ could just edit that
tangible is good, but could be prescriptive instead of descripive
example section could be nice, based on previous examples
once we get fiscal host, we can include it in there and link it
not about who brings it in, support making that explicit
adding headings, would be happy about this: ideoligical background, what we’ll discuss, facts/ how it happens, examples - but not too motivted to work on headings myself, as it’s not a very long text
Butze:
also stumbled on the word “guideline”, not sure a good other word
it also says “people who use Karrot”, so users of karrot could come and ask for money?
also don’t see the need to structure to the text, but would be happy to
Nathalie:
also not so motivated to structure the text with headlines, as it seems not too long
am motivated to add a sentence here or there:
opencollective
one money pot
and in the weekly meeting, not after
openness of money circle? didn’t advocate for it to be so open, but happy with it, currently we only give money to karrot team, open to some flexibility, in reality mostly people in karrot team
Nick:
openness, just leave it, but how do people know? they would need to be aware of it and somehow active
we did pay travel costs to karrot users, could be worth having a section, making it clearer for other people
next steps
bring back a new version of text to a meeting (maybe after fiscal host?)
I’d like to do an interview (8 to 10 questions, written asynchronously) and publish it on the APC website.
Would you agree?
If so, who should I write to to send these questions?
Looking forward to hearing from you
5. Actions and Outcomes
write feedback and reflections on suggesting Karrot to parents coop [Bruno]
change getting started guide to give the right message for undergrad students [Vasilis]
summary is that we dont have capacity for dev contributions but HCIish things yes
technical design of signup public activities on Codeberg [Nick]
bring back a new version of text to a meeting (maybe after fiscal host?) [Nathalie, nick happy to co-work on it]
very aware that the role desing process should start soon
finish the polls we d like to bring it in a meeting before it gets to development
for the roles. call a meeting…follow the design process, come up with a penpot, basically similarly to the polls (hosted by Nathalie)
keep in mind/updated with reality
some can progress when we got the fiscal host (no money on the account atm)
when Jay is back: Jay’s membership
Agreements: Member policy
§3 Becoming a Member paragraph
round of reactions:
Bruno: met her already and feels like she’s got the qualities for becoming a member. Saw a commitment and interest in cotributing mainly with development, but also with other tasks, would be interested to hear a bit more about how she sees her contributions in the future
Nathalie: a little ritual, meeting in person in Siegen helped me a lot, do see a lot of commitment, contribute, design process, there is a lot of things in favor of u also joining the team, one sense, hard to articulate: concern that engaging in a self-organised env might lead to overwhelm.
Vas: missed meeting in person, do see a good fit, beautiful to see Jay coming to the meetings, liked that Jay was sharing ideas already, good energy, likes to see team growing!
Nick:(re)echo, nice to build on the ‘in person’ base, enthusiasm is quite obvious and present, general in chatting, talking + Singing!!!, lots of ideas, bright thought, idea of having more ppl to develop (increased tech team) ‘I like that’ (Nick), learning the new tech we use, knowlegde sharing, space for learning within the self-organised, lack of urgency in Karrot, we dont have this ‘urgency’, its more present or slow or whatever is fitting, hope it feels that way as well, ‘slow spaciness’ can be nice and frustrating. A space to explore my experiences in siegen relating the situation with fslux
Jay: sorry have to be in and out of meetings, set time not compatible with my schedule. Fslux as one of the ‘users’ of Karrot, I m OK discussing about it. Overwhelm doesnt put pressure on me, had a positive experience, in general I have a positive experience, well organised but yet not so strict to stress me out, good match, from an idelogical, I want to be part of socially. How the process feels? It feels a bit stressful. ‘It is a bit like an interview’. My job is doing enough to cover my money needs atm.
centre for sociodigital futures (post-doc). Wrote me an email, ideas of trust. Community Econonomies, fancy working with me? workshop of paper,blog or seminar, invitation to explore that further, no big rush, away till end of July
Nathalie good opportunity, I m not so interested in joining atm. Still vague but nice. Would ‘nominate’ Vas or Bruno to join if they like. How do u see the money involved?
Vas is happy to join/participate/chat/explore
Jay happy to join, interesting discussion that might come up
Nick: reply to Matt, propose an exploratory meeting, 1h or so and see where to go from there
If there is 250 a day, woulld like to participate as a team, a community in that way. Simpler to include that as pooled money
future meeting:
bring polls design into meeting for discussion/approval
one of the structured sessions: ABCs of the new econommy, attend an annual EGM, join a committed role, middle role: listed 7 things, e.g. learning skills, sharing connections, contribute ideas, tell stories was quite a nice one, two ppl had interesting chats with, commons booking, curcilar economy urban project e.g. have a karrot instance, the other project was a shared economy project using open-collective, would be a while before Karrot would make sense for them, made me think of Karrot as a core that is supported by plugins/extention. A community around deaf users also connected to, eg a work on a join application funding platform to work on more tailor made features. Got some good ideas overall for Karrot
session on investing/funding: going down and gets harder and harder, everyone seems to ‘hate’ the whole thing, models outside waiting for the funding cow are important to find.
community tech session didnt engage much but nice ppl to talk to
like it how it is, wait until it’s true as we’re still in process with all for climate
Open Collective
get rid of ‘in the sense of redistribution’
not very clear what is meant by decouple income generation and receiving money
happy with text
‘however we recognize…’ not logically coherent, conclusion that is drawn
common pot aplies to funding, some do more fundign oriented work that other and therefore ‘generate’ more income
not sure about ‘decoupling’, is it clear for outsider?
confused about categories of contribution, is it for Karrot members or outside contributors? Is there no fixed salary?
Alternative wording of redistribution sentence
3 categories: paragraph above has the relevant information, doesn’t only refer to Karrot team, problem of guidelines, happy to get rid of it if it’s adding confusion, it is not a boundary, emphasis on discussion part
monthy or task based compensation, not categorise contributors
not speak about ‘3 categories’ but ‘ways of contributing’ instead of putting a number
don’t see myself in any category
process question: consent to written proposals, continue rewriting other parts, iterative approach
Proposal:
Adopt new version of agreement with a term of 1 year.
Bring back proposal after tomorrow’s co-working
Add current changes in bold
Consent round
Objection: 'we aim to distribute the money fairly ': unclear what fairly means, it is vague and doesn’t reflect what we mean
Proposal: Agree on everything else and leave this part (2nd paragraph) to coworking session
Consent!
Next steps
update agreement on forum and karrot group [Nathalie]
report from FOSC Community of Practice [Vas]
good meeting, 7-8 people, 3 people from SoFA, others from other projects (US, Poland)
skipped bureacratic parts e.g. SoFA membership to join
getting to know each other, some started implementing socicoracy
made a list of topics for the future
meet once a month
very grounded, different ideas
interested to think about fluctuating participation, how could sociocracy work there
not only focused on decision making but building relationship, sharing emotions
shared values implicit in open-source and sociocracy
expressed personal interest ‘out of the papers and to the hands of actual communities’
writing to vas and butze to ask for some references for papers for the issue of trust
how it connects with real-world trust
matt dowse initially wrote:
“Specifically, I’m thinking about the idea of trust and how trust is built through community technology practices and processes – both in the ways that organising in this space is constituted and broadly governed (alt models etc) and how these practices can form particular kinds of trust (and vulnerability) and what this means to how community technology might be imagined in the future as a trust making practice…… In part, this links to some of the community economies summer school work that I’ve been working on in that I think that trust has the potential to sensitize us to some of the invisible practices that make up community tech practice and which might be generative to future thinking about community tech and what it does/can could do (in opposition to some of the more damaging effects and or practices of more capitalist forms of tech practice).”
not much research around trust which is not transactional (reviews, star systems), different forms of trust e.g. trusting someone to hold a role, relational form of trust is build gradually, some papers on relations trust, but not much how technology can mediate this (related to HCI)
different faces: trust people, trust mission, trust culture, trust platform as a software, trust towards an instance admin, trust to be solid
needs to think more about the conection of trust, roles and selection processes, also looking at our next Dsign Process for Roles
is trust-building a fundamantally non-technologial process? How much can technology really do?
sociocracy supports trust-building and psychologival safety in circles/ small groups
Who is interested to join an inital call with Matt?
Jay, Vas, Bruno, Nick
how to find a date?
take some time beforehand and use a co-working to collect trust related topics
could do it or do it together with Matt
Proposal
Ask Matt if they have an agenda and plan for the meeting, propose to use co-working time (August 7th)
Jay, Vas, Bruno and Nick will take part
continue in co-working
review List of ideas at the bottom of this page, remove items that magically happened and celebrate! [Nathalie]
“retribution” terminology confusing, could mean punishment
some confusion/overwhelm about all the details
leaning towards the option of leaving it completely
although can be useful to have examples of how we can make money flow, e.g. some monthly, some time based, some task based
would be against getting rid of it entirely, as would lose information
getting rid of it? in law there is an agreement and a guidance document, maybe that’s what we need here. Guidance document can be more wordy and doesn’t need to be on a level of agreement
how to onboard people to a new money paradigm
process is conversation based, this seems to be the essance
additional advice document could have more help with examples and link
Next steps
put proposal in forum and continue conversation there [Jay]
continue as slow conversation, no decision now
mini-updates?
bring polls design into meeting for discussion/approval [Bruno]
having a menu entry on left to show all polls in group?
put it in mental checklist, it evaporated
would be nice to have a place to share the polls, wondered about the size of the menu…
maybe a redesign of main menu…
easiest solution would be add another item
also likes it, straight-forward
there will be more requests in the future and we can keep impoving it
time-bounds came up quickly in feedback round e.g. useful for Warsaw group
adding bonus features while developing
core features and bonus feature list for development
get everything on forum thread (see outcome)
how does it relate to agreements, membership reviews
also relates to menu: governance, coordiantion, communication
Proposal:
take this as core feature for polls
Reactions
looks good as a must-have
nothing more to add
makes sense, well defined
no objections raised
plan to move forward? Bruno document and summarise on forum, could request nlnet money (Bruno) and then do bank paymet to oc, Nick could start working on it in a couple of weeks
feel quite opposed, it’s double the amount, and if it’s only because they don’t have the option, doesn’t seem enough reason, not sure if I actually want to object, but want to raise it, we don’t have tonnes of money, unclear, might let it pass
wonder why they have such a different amount?
Operational part of doing payments
think there might be another way how to do it… not sure if it is better
went back to allforclimate notes, could go to karrot page, submit an expense request, then could choose an organisation, then would require them to send us an invoice, not sure which way makes more sense
can explore it more in co-working
this option makes more sense, not going through personal bank accounts, would like to see money flowing through collectives and organisations
Proposal: Willing to pay 108GBP/year, pending the exploration of payment options.
Consent round
Bruno: Object: Request Coop-Cloud to be consistent
Nathalie: consent
Jay: consent
Nick: consent
Proposal: Willing to pay 108GBP/year, pending the exploration of payment options and request Coop-Cloud to be consistent
agreement feature and group governance, have a default agreement coming with the software
main point is making implicit choices more explicit
sth like ‘terms of agreement’, not in legal terms but more
sometimes groups are a bit unware of how to use features
bruno
makes sense, we ve seen group’s having confusions with karrot-trust system, I think it would be nice to have some default agreements, how it works on karrot, not trying to impose but making clear that with some aspects, the have to live with
try to list what these things are (e.g. membership review process, editor roles, trust karrots)
vas
default agreement or manual?
example of a group that bypassed the trust system and created an admin
people tend to use Karrot in their ways, like carrots as likes
tend towards making it as a list of things to make it clear, but hard to impose them to people, because they will bypass
makes sense to have a forum post to discuss it and have different views
sees the potential of getting people to use and think about agreements as a feature
bruno
having default agreements is a way to nudge, make it more visible
groups can then change that agreement if they want to use Karrot in another way it was intended
stays in the ideas section for now and we link the notes that we have started the disc already on that
Open Collective account
set up contribution levels with descriptions?
in the contribute section what tiers we can have
happy to remove the default options and leave one-time donation
include link, or more inside Karrot?
when do we make it really public?
make a banner?
deeper integration?
I d put that more into the future as a question [nathalie]
do we want to promote our open collective account?
question for essen fur alles for example?
not sure yet to contact them
feels like it is still an exploring phase
wonder if nlnet will be happy with the way the payment was handled on opencollective (nathalie)
I was also bit surprised (Bruno)
also checked opencollective today and are assuming Nick was in touch with nlnet (vas)
slightly dissappointment that money still needs to flow through us e.g. with the coop-cloud payment (vas)
how easy or unconvenient
ent would it be for them, seems like a good case
need to explore more, what are good/ bad sides
go ahead and use opencollective as our accounting tool, but be a bit catious and still see this as an experiment
also on bigger scale, for which groups does opencollective make sense?
being more action oriented
remove default options for donations
include link on forum
explore deeper integration further
for example groups having their own open-collective account
ask Essen für Alle for feedback and explore together
remove the default options on opencollective [vas]
done! just one option now, flexible one-time or recurring donation
check last email convo between Nick and foodsharing Warsaw [vas and the rest]
some people read it, and updated people at last co-working, and up for discussion today
check opencollective and relevant discussion here and come up with a proposal and check convos on funding place on our Karrot group [vas]
hopefully continue on coworking tomorrow, and explore what we might be able to do, to link opencollective with karrot a bit more
4. Discussion Points
mini updates
received first nlnet money
donate from personal to opencollective
needs manual process, financial admin
choose where u are donating from
select karrot org or other org
nlnet account on opencollective?
linked nlnet
should nlnet be aware of that?
know that other projects created phantom orgs for payment
would need to revisit emails for exact info around this
donation from personal account to karrot?
two donations chain
personal to karrot,
everyone responsible for own taxes
donation from personal to opencollective?
how to access email? [Jay]
we have an email integration with the forum
warsaw situation [nick + everyone else who read through]
starting thing with one person from Warsaw, years going back having chats with them, was a hectic time for me, had minimal timme to think or reflect, my sense was that harm was perpetrated in the immediate situation, someone stalking another person
decided to cc info@karrot.world
to trace the whole thing you need to expand the converstaion (3 dots)
block access to this guy, built in to django
was voted out already
allegation was that he was accessing private info, so there was a bit of panick about data security, gdpr,
I was then also accessing this situation from a technincal angle
there seemsm to be a bug: not meant to open ones prof if u are not in the same group
but this is not true
I suspended that user
decided that we cant wait around to discuss and that there was a need for more immediate action
they were sort of loosing trust on karrot but they were content/happy that we acted ]
same person started using FB afterwards where we cannot do much
protection mechanisms as a community and a team that can be more effective to more fixed, bureaucratic security mechanisms
feels a bit messy and i have a strong belief that we can put sth forward
round:
was good to take pre-cautionary action to restrict the user
would be interesting to investigate what triggered all that
previously would have argued to never exclude anyone, but after 12 years of these movements, realise limitations on resources/capacity to deal with situations in depth
wondering what the terms for suspending someone from an instance
wondering what happens if they created a new group
questions:
did it happen before to block someone from a whole instance? did we do it? group level vs instance level
no
our job is walking the tightrope between ‘it there business’ and ‘we ll do everything to heal your pain/trauma’
with having the technical power commes with the responsibility
not using the power can be as active as not using it
future meeting:
discuss the approach for adding nlnet money to karrot opencollective
Date: 2024-08-20 on Karrot
Facilitator: Nick
Minutes: vas & others
Participants: nick, jay, bruno, vas, butze
1. Opening
10 min Check in
5 min ADMIN
attendance
duration: 11.30 CEST
information? any (non-karrot) announcements? unavailabilities?
vasilis: got some money for par-courier (parcour + courier) - critique of dark side of gig economy, 1 month of research to find out The Thing, and if there is potential, 2000EUR
going to poke philip for it
nick: sharedfutures, want to exlore the relationship with Karrot
jay: foodsharing luxembourg Bonnevoie fridge is gone
next meeting: weekly meeting and co-working: nick, vas, jay, bruno
Bruno: read emails, got some understanding, came across the forum post questioning the decision, set a boundaries between responsibilities, karrot-team vs karrot groups, where our responsibility lies?
Vas:
the way nick acted was meaningful and happy he acted this way
consideration is whether we should make it more legit, not just trusting individual people in groups
so maybe like we did before with modifying the database, do something that is more official, e.g. signed by three people, so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time, we need adapations
yes we trust individuals, but there might be the case someone comes along we don’t know in person
I get the question, where our responsiblities start and end? how to make separation between karrot as a platform and karrot groups… stepping in is showing solidarity to the people that got harrassed or stalked, also thinking about the conflict in solikyl, and information sharing… maybe a bigger discussion about how groups accept new members, groups are the ones to decide who is in group
one idea: come up with something less personalised, that doesn’t depend on knowing someone in the group we trust
second idea: how do we communicate with groups? e.g with lund assuming “everyone is a sweetheart” is not always true… how can we refer to cases we know of in the past, e.g. let people know there might be difficulties that come up, and that they have to take responsiblities and be proactive
Jay:
could talk about it for an hour
mentions of sharing private information, menacing, turning up to foodsharing collection points, the person denied using private information, but did not deny turning up to uninvited events (so more likely to be true)
did not use information to menace information, but used it to let them know their data could be exposed, so would refrain from that accusation. claims he was the first person to mention that data was exposed.
agree with vas, we should document how we handle these kind of conflicts, so we can refer to it in the future, and justify our actions, so people can feel more fairly treated, accessible to everyone, and policies we are coherent with
brought up to many issues that would be interesting to discuss, you can find my comments in forum if you want to engage with that
q: person was trying to show data was exposed within group? he says thanks to him they changed a way they published data within the group, hard to understand (language reasons perhaps). someone from the trust group resigned throughout the process, perhaps because they didn’t agree with how the process unfolded (not clear though)
bruno q:
they were removed by the membership review process by the time nick acted. yes.
any idea why he wanted to still be a member? not clear… curious. doesn’t seem to want to let it go. purpose is not clear.
butze
really like that you people engage so much and care so much, I admit I can’t at the moment
was never too much interested in the individual situations, but looked at the big picture, I know not 100% cool, but ok…
not so engaged, do appreciate your efforts
nick:
happy to do sensemaking together
agree with what has been said
considersation of our situation within our existing agreement
evaluate existing agreement
or a new agreement to cover what we can cover with this scenario
wonder if we can do it effectively and prior wisdom
anyone wanats to take a lead on that?
bruno:
we’re not going to come up with a policy right now, also aware of time it might take
don’t think it’s that urgent, can start the discussion now and reflect on it
maybe not needed for this specific case
suggest we make a decision for this specific case
separating responsiblities of karrot responsiblity vs group responsiblity
consider the group sovreign, and they’ve made a decision, it might be the group is skewed and not operating well, but I don’t know, and as a team we don’t know, and don’t need to know, might be interesting to know from a design perspective in the future, to build healthier groups, but not for the merits of this case
for us, knowing that group has done a membership review process and the person got excluded
what is relevant for karrot as a team/instance is visiblity of information on profiles, we can work on that, the action taken by nick was justified so that a person that is not supposed to have access to that information does not (which might have been because of the bug).
group expressed a wish
now coming to a proposal: we excluded you from the instance on those grounds so you would not have access (due to bug), can thank them, if they want to continue using karrot without another profile that’s ok, proposal for this specific decision
and the rest of the topics are for the group to consider
probably won’t have a decision now for a policy
vas:
quite some time since I saw bruno having so much energy and clarity, happy to see it
clarifying question, what is current situation? expecting there might be more content from him, but not really open question. gave him a chance to clarify himself
bruno covered everything I had in mind. accepting groups have their own responsiblity.
good news a bug was brought up.
one idea: in co-working, check the agreement we have already, try and think how the way acted could fit in the agreement we have already, on which grounds can be justified, and how could we enrich the agreement we have
as a light proposal: would it make sense to link the agreement in the membership review process, as a hard coded thing… so there is a wider agreement in place from the karrot team/instance. leaning towards what bruno and jay implied, that this person should be allowed to write a new profile, and it’s on whichever group they join to assess the application
jay:
if nobody takes the lead, I wouldn’t mind
I think we should fix the data leak bug, and maybe add a profile description length limit
after fixing those, could contact him, and restore his current account
free to create own groups/communities with people that support him, don’t need to going into space of others
thank him for the bug
we can better think how our features affect power related conflicts in local communities, try our best to give good frameworks to avoid these conflicts in the future
only concrete action is fixing the bugs, we’ll do before writing or reactiviting account
hopefully that’ll be a satisfying result
nick:
like the idea to seperate what we do with the specific case with ongoing thing
fix the data access bug
proposal [consent achieved]:
Fix data bug
Fix profile length
Once those are done and deployed, restore his existing account
consent round
bruno: consent (hhappy to leave comms to jay)
vas: consent (agree with bruno)
jay: consent
nick: consent
Jay’s proposal:
Fix data bug
Fix profile leghth
Once those are done and deployed, restore his existing account.
Encourage him to move on from the group. Make clear we are not the judge of what happened between him and FS Warsaw
He can still be active and still create his own group
Thank him for
- bringing up the bug on data leaking
- the theme of power dynamics in local group and say we will commit to improve our framework to better avoid power-related conflicts in local communities
future meetings:
matt update
discuss the approach for adding nlnet money to karrot opencollective
nlnet milestones/pace/etc.
Long messages in german on community forum… what are they [jay]
5. Actions and Outcomes
do rfp after the above is done [Bruno]
check opencollective (regarding linking opencollective and karrot instance) [vas]
