Change how decisions are made in the BookWyrm project

[mouse-reeve]

The problem

I would like to have decisions about BookWyrm to be made more collectively and with more room for community input. I would also like to be less of a bottleneck on decision making, both because I think it does a disservice to people who have different viewpoints than me, and because it's a lot of work for me.

Some examples what I think would be a good fit for community decision making:

• Deciding whether adding something like Loomio would be beneficial or not (oh the irony)
• Whether to use a GitHub wiki for technical documentation or keep it on docs.joinbookwyrm.com
• Adding new admins and moderators to BookWyrm discussion spaces
• Whether certain types of media/metadata should be supported or not (interesting recent examples include AO3 metadata and academic journal articles)

How it works currently

Issues are discussed in the Matrix developer chat and on GitHub issues, and I try my best to solicit feedback and listen to it, and then move forward with what I think seems like the best approach for the project.

What I think a good solution would offer

• A way for interested users (notably including people who don't see themselves as "technical") to have a say in how BookWyrm works
• A place for the decision making process around a specific topic to be documented
• Time constraints on decisions
• Attentive moderation and a welcoming environment in which people can disagree respectfully
• Accessibility, both in the sense of being screen-reader accessible, for example, and also in the sense of just being easy to find

Possible solution

My proposal is to create a Loomio instance for BookWyrm, and use it to host discussions about a decision, and voting for how to proceed with that decision. I don't have a ton of experience using Loomio so I'm really interested to hear from folks about what worked or didn't work for them. My take is that being able to have discussion with voting in a specific time constraint could be an effective way to make decisions more equitably, and avoid getting stuck in endless conversation threads that get buried and forgotten.

The process I envision looks something like:

• A question about how to proceed is proposed by one of a relatively small group of people (ie, not anyone) who works on BookWyrm, and given a generous time window (a month? a couple weeks?) for people to participate
• Anyone with a stake (ie, any bookwyrm user) is invited to weigh in and vote on the decision
• Once the voting window closes, we proceed with the what the group determines.

The reason I'm suggesting having a limited number of people able to start discussion is because there are already quite a few places for people to come with questions and ideas (GitHub issues, Matrix chat, my DMs, etc), and I think having another place that is totally open could lead it to it being both unclear when it's the right place for a thought and also overwhelming and unmanageable for developers and for participants. BookWyrm is also limited by how much capacity there is to actually implement ideas, and I want the pace of decision making to reflect actual work than can reasonable be done in the near-ish term.

I think this should be supported with some clear documentation on how the process works, what BookWyrm's core values are, and how people are expected to communicate.

Alternative suggestions

I posed this idea more briefly in Matrix and got mostly positive feedback. A couple people expressed frustrations with using Loomio and have suggested Flarum or Discourse as alternatives.

But very long story short, I'd be super grateful for feedback whether its positive or negative, things I haven't considered here, or alternative ideas.

[jaschaurbach]

I am full in for that and I really appreciate the idea.

After the discussion in Matrix I tried out all of the tools and I have a vote for Discourse (as this is a more known tool and I know that the voting process works very good)

[marcusyoung]

I am in support of this proposal. I have no experience of Loomio (either as an admin or user). However, from what I have seen I am impressed with it's GUI (e.g. the tabs to separate threads, polls, members, files etc. and the context column on the right in threads) and the focus on the decision making process/workflow. This workflow could be replicated in the other tools to a greater or lesser extent, but I think it is good that it doesn't look like a traditional discussion board (like Discourse and Flarum) - especially as users won't be able to start discussions. Also you have the group and sub group functionality - in the future as the project grows you might want sub groups for e.g. a governance board, or for instance admins (e.g. for discussions/decisions of a technical nature only).

As I say, I cannot base this on any experience of Loomio, but I would give it a go as I think it may be the better long term option to support the project.

[hughrun]

I strongly support this proposal and Loomio as the platform to use. Currently project governance is unclear, discussions are scattered, and there is a lot of pressure on @mouse-reeve.

It's a few years since I last used Loomio, but it is specifically designed for this use-case, and has a strong reputation. I don't think generic "forum" software would be nearly as effective at supporting group decision making (I also really dislike Discourse, but that's just a personal preference more about the UI).

[jaschaurbach]

Just for the record: at the end I do not care which tool :) I am happy with the one we'll get :)

[joachimesque]

Count me as a "emphatic yes, especially if it helps mouse bearing the weight of the project" for the proposal, and a "I don't have any experience with loomio or alternatives, so I trust you all" for the choice of tools

[RaraCool]

I think this is the exact kind of use case Loomio is built for, if you want an easy and democratic way for people to have their voice heard on a project like Bookwyrm, Loomio is a great way to have it all aggregated in one place. Most of all, I feel like the Loomio format is much more approachable to newcomers compared to a forum.

[kmen]

I tend to prefer public assembly-based models to voting and polling solutions. Having said that, such a process would likely be even more laborious than the current state of things (and running something like Decidim might prove to be overkill for this project), so, yes, I think right now something like Loomio might simplify the process and allow more of us to get involved.

[mouse-reeve]

@kmen can you tell me more about what a public assembly based model is? I'm not familiar with the phrase

[kmen]

@mouse-reeve I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. By "public assembly" I mean a process by which a decision is made following collective discussion, and with unanimous agreement - as opposed to voting mechanisms, where the majority will determine the decision taken. An assembly process is closer to the idea of direct democracy, but is also very laborious, so probably not the best at this moment. (But it might be considered in the future, depending on how the Bookwyrm community evolves).

[mediapinta]

I'm definitively not a technical person and I may be out of the discussion, but I like how it looks and work changemap, like in this project.

[joshsimmons]

I can't tell you how happy I was to see you open this issue, @mouse-reeve! I've been geeking out about fediverse project governance with @shaunagm, mostly thinking about Mastodon, as project governance and sustainability is central to our day jobs and work in FOSS ... and as it turns out we're also both BookWyrm users/instance operators :D

I don't have any specific suggestions but wanted to wade in and express my gratitude, interest in participating, and also offer our support on all things meta.

[nomadPreacher]

Hello, not sure if I'm necroing this or not, however I'd like to know if the situation developed positively and -in that case- where is the relevant platform adopted. Thanks!