Participants: Bruno, Vas, Nick
- write to Kranti about a feedback session (Bruno)
- read and discuss database change proposal (Bruno, Nick, Vas)
- proposal C on Proposal for making changes to the database based on user requests in the case of conflicts - HedgeDoc
- 1st bold sentence…ideally show us agreement…formulate it better…it is not very clear
-why do we put an outcome as an agreement as a Karrot group?
-Last points: guidelines: unclear after we make a decision or during the whole process?
-what is the role of the guidelnes? where do they fit in the process? What happens if we make a decision?
-would approve it as it is, safe enough to try, we could refine it further, loads of little, put a review date on it, atm stops us.
-principles and guidlines are overlapping, could be combined in one section
-agreement within the Karrot team, a decison log, not though set on that, space in the forum to be discusses, not necessairy to have it as an agrement.
-low motivation to continue to work on it. Happy if someone else do it.
- seems useful to have a place to store decisions, either as agreement, or elsewhere
- don’t believe ability to act without moral judgement
- put more focus on “it is more likely we take action if we have a clear understanding of the governance structure the group uses, and how this request fits with that”
quick 2nd round:
-accept it and reviewing it later
-we trust that the evidence is accurate, maybe we dont need to take a stance on the details
-it is a decsion that was made through their own processes and cannot do it through Karrot so we step in
-take away guidelines and leave the principles
make some small edits now
draft of document about vision, strategy, finance (everyone)
one question: where would you like karrot to be in 1, 5, and 10 years?
Karrot in 1 year
I would like for Karrot in the next year to have accomplished at least one new design process which would lead to the development of 1-2 new features. Maybe in the direction of a more general purpose tool. I would like that we have produced some articles (I can help in that) which go on blogs e.g. Medium. Maybe that is a good way to make Karrot more visible and share some thoughts on the model we are developing to make Karrot socially, financially, design-ly sustainable. On the latter, I am expecting that by next year Karrot has a ‘concrete’ vision supported by a series of steps and a timeline that support it. Would be happy if Karrot gets another small precarious funding -yeah I know funding fatigue- before implementing a more internal hybrid model.
Karrot in 5 years
Karrot in 5 years has new features that can fully support other communities beyond saving and sharing food. It is financially sustainable at least providing a ‘wage’ to 2 persons. Karrot is more convivial and easy to use and has no ‘silly’ bugs. Karrot is part of a bigger ecosystem of projects that share similar values which better interoperate. With regards to foodsaving Karrot is more flexible and can be used by shops and collaborators as well. In the context of foodsharing but also other contexts Karrot interoperates with IoTs (i.e. a smart soli fridge, sensors found in a garden etc). It is also richer in governance templates that can support varying community organising models.
Karrot in 10 years
I can imagine how tech and esp community tech will look like in 10y from now. Maybe Karrot is on a blockchain? Or has its own blockchain? Maybe its other ppl involved and not us (nick, bruno, nathalie, myself)…10 years is too far in the future to think of…
I did “10 years” first, then I got dreaming-overwhelm, and thought a short term tangible focus is what I want to think about next, I ossiclate between the two
We have re-invigorated a method to define a roadmap, including input from the whole team, and from groups. There is a strategy agreement that makes clear our intentions for the next period of time (perhaps a year or two?) that includes considerations of visions, principles, governance, money.
We have found a situation regarding a legal entity that makes sense and works for us, allowing us to receive income from whoever wishes to contribute, and contributors to the project are able to receive a useful amount to support their lives.
We have deepened connections with other organisations, projects, and people that are aligned with our intentions.
Our governance, both within the team, and across the project as a whole, is still evolving, but has a direction.
This one is kind of scary, as “1 year” is ok just to be working towards things, and “10 years” it’s ok as dreams, but “5 years” is kind of like, we should have some tangible results, things that we wanted in “1 year” should be up and running right? … then the fear that they would not be
We have a defined governance system that includes how our team works, and how our team relates to the groups.
There are a number of other instances running, and there are people that take care of running the original instance too that are not nercesarily involved in development.
There are features that support more complex relationships between groups (e.g. subgroups, federations of groups, friendly groups, etc…). There are features that allow “external” users to interact with the group as they wish.
It is clear to everyone what Karrot is, and what model of organising it supports.
There are aspects of technical federation working well, both between instances of karrot, and other software.
Core contributors feel quite stable with the needs of their daily life being sufficiently met by their work on Karrot, where desirable.
In some way this is the easiest as it doesn’t have to be realistic or practical right now. Painting pictures in the sky.
A broad, loose, but coherent and effecient co-operation has emerged, and developed interoperable data and communication standards that support economic and social activities to be co-ordinated via commons principles.
Karrot is part of this ecosystem and has evolved to be a modular toolkit for commons-based community organising. Karrot doesn’t exist as an individual, indepedent standalone software platform, but more as a continuation of the spirit we have nurtured, and it’s translation into modular tools for organising.
The core focus is still specific organising, how we can organise resources, meet needs, and do that in community, but there is a seamless flow between that and the social world beyond.
Contributors to the project are able to meet their own needs through a combination of money and direct provision of resources through the network that it exists within. It is not a software project, but a social and economic project.
Round of comments:
-pretty compatible actually
-didnt read anything that I m hmmm that’s not I want/imagine
-can imagine that bruno and Nathalie write sth that can lead to a vision document
-short term tangible
-try and get a harmony of wider vision and features
-notes from unity: two cultures, getting stuff done, other one was utopia, revolution: I am not interested in that but that changed…the harmony is the beautiful potential
good to have dreaming part first
10 years was hardest, e.g. are smartphones going to be around
local instances makes sense
interoperability and broader ecosystem, very much aligned
maybe nathalie has some good knowledge to bring in other interesting questions to us to reflect on here
poke Nathalie to check the agreement (Vas)