Accumulate feedback to presentation "Group Self and Communication"

[wloev]

On the 19.11 several people were missing and we had not much time to discuss the presented ideas. Atik and I have now posted a recap on the Wiki (https://github.com/ciex/souma/wiki/Group-self-and-communication) that should serve as a point of departure and reference for accumulating feedback, questions and ideas concerning the topics (simply comment below this topic). Some people were interested in working some of the ideas further out.

Michael we assigned the issue to you because you were not there but we think that you will have much to say on the issues. Nevertheless, everyone is encouraged to post her/his thoughts - don't be shy. Furthermore, it would be nice if interested people would approach us so that we can work on the concretization and implementation of the ideas together.

[Trami]

Hey guys, here some comments to the wiki page from my side. They’re very critical but I think also useful – see it as a devil’s advocate role that I take.. ;)

I find the wiki formatting confusing and the bullet points in some sections make it difficult to understand what you mean.. I often asked myself: how are these items related? I edited some things: aimed at giving the page some structure and make things more explicit in text format to make the whole thing more intuitive for processing and further working easier. –> [ ] Check up on the edits and see whether this is still what you mean/ whether this makes sense to you.

I further put questions (in italics) where I did not get what you want to convey, or what you conceive of certain concepts and where I would need some more detailed descriptions. I think it might help me to put this more in context if you made more explixit in which stage you see your content? Some parts seem more like motivations, some like first concretisations of theory? –> [ ] you could use the method you suggested (2.1) to indicate on what levels the several bullet points are meant (I tried to do this for (1.3) as an example)

All in all, I think there are many interesting ideas contained in your presi/the wiki. For me, they are now in the state of a rough draft. So, I think the next steps have to be:

• [ ] detail out the concepts you describe (e.g. conversation architecture, identify button) in the context of group-forming processes (e.g. as user stories,…); the aim could be to in the end have descriptions of theory – concretisation – functionality for each of the sections;
• [ ] imagine how the interface functionality could look like (e.g. in interface mock-ups, sketches of page views…)

[cartisan]

First: I really like Tramis annotations! Now to some content. It might be useful to think of a ternary logic in the conversation structure. It is not always possible to classify a contribution as positive or negative to the initial proposition. (Summaries, alternatives, deviations, ...?) The challenge for a ternary model would be to find a good way for voting, summarization and structuring. @ciex feels a bit like git's branching/merging structure. Can't put me finger on it yet. Anyway in an ideal world we should study the types of communications, classify them in an functional/procedural taxonomy and propose solutions for each one if them. The proposed one is an ideal candidate for decision-making discussions. But would it be equally well suited to organise eg identificational pondering?

The term interested people implies no involvement of the user himself - rather a general set of people who decided to be interested in the user. But what if the user does not want someone to be interested in him? What if hse wants her information delivered to only a subset of her IP?

I like the 'better the reality' point. It's a good validator for concrete targets and features.

[cafca]

Check this out https://bptarguments.piratenpartei.de/141/