search

jywarren / plots

This is the old website for Public Lab; visit http://publiclab.org and https://github.com/publiclab/plots2 for the new website.
http://old.publiclab.org
12 stars 0 forks source link

PLOTS Portrait #151

Closed gonzoearth closed 12 years ago

gonzoearth commented 12 years ago

a visual diagram of the PLOTS community - Jeff will draft and circulate for input

jywarren commented 12 years ago

OK, here's a draft, where i put in some examples, which maybe wouldn't be in the final?:

(link to Google doc: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1B0jkvNFpMGbmDHRl3NJQfBAgehbfnjBKwzRtOQ-HPPI/edit)

swylie commented 12 years ago

I think this looks amazing, my only question would be should there be a visual link between partner organizations? flow diagram arrows? Can they be on working groups?

second question could you make a similar diagram for the tool development tree? I'd love to be thinking with that too. This methods might be great to kickstart the working groups as it is easy to share concepts with images.....data rich ones :)

jywarren commented 12 years ago

OK, added arrows. Also two things which would be nice to explore, but which we might want to debate on the Team list:

jywarren commented 12 years ago

oh, also - i added a second set of arrows indicating that one major role of staff and organizers is to help facilitate relationships with partner orgs. I'm thinking of some activist groups and nonprofits which follow a slightly more traditional structure and don't know how to engage with a communal and nebulous open source group.

ebarry commented 12 years ago

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

jywarren commented 12 years ago

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text below this that lists them like on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner orgs and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no? Maybe just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works ? (like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5293989

gonzoearth commented 12 years ago

Looks great. I like it at /about or close by. Would it be weird to have a box outside with a one way relationship out from PLOTS to people/organizations outside of our targeted scope? This does not necessarily mean the oil industry, but Google for example.

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text below this that lists them like on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner orgs and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no? Maybe just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works ? (like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry < reply@reply.github.com javascript:;

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5293989

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5294578

jywarren commented 12 years ago

hmm, maybe it's getting out of scope -- but mainly i worry that if we say that, we should also add other outcomes we hope for, and then the diagram becomes much larger -- see this list: http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/outcomes

maybe that's a different page?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM, stewart long < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

Looks great. I like it at /about or close by. Would it be weird to have a box outside with a one way relationship out from PLOTS to people/organizations outside of our targeted scope? This does not necessarily mean the oil industry, but Google for example.

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text below this that lists them like on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner orgs and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no? Maybe just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works ? (like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry < reply@reply.github.com javascript:;

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5293989

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5294578

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5294766

gonzoearth commented 12 years ago

A separate outcomes page or diagram sounds good. Another idea to toss out there; it is implied, but should we show some type of callout on the diagram that people can join/start/begin with the big Public Laboratory community bubble.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Jeffrey Warren < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

hmm, maybe it's getting out of scope -- but mainly i worry that if we say that, we should also add other outcomes we hope for, and then the diagram becomes much larger -- see this list: http://publiclaboratory.org/wiki/outcomes

maybe that's a different page?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM, stewart long < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

Looks great. I like it at /about or close by. Would it be weird to have a box outside with a one way relationship out from PLOTS to people/organizations outside of our targeted scope? This does not necessarily mean the oil industry, but Google for example.

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Jeffrey Warren wrote:

i had trouble listing them all in my head but we should have some text below this that lists them like on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

also too many arrows is not good - showing that although both partner orgs and communitys of shared interest can connect either via staff or just directly participate in the community would take too many arrows, no? Maybe just talk about those specific roles in the text below?

where would this live? /about ? publiclaboratory.org/wiki/how-it-works? (like http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Liz Barry < reply@reply.github.com javascript:;

wrote:

based on recent experience, i think that even between communities of collaboration there might be some degree of coordination needed that will require staff.

i agree with removing the names of orgs (although it is helpful), and adding ALL the working groups as a nice transparency thing

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5293989

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5294578

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5294766

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5295159

adamdgriffith commented 12 years ago

Looks fantastic. I like not putting specific orgs on the first chart, but having a subsequent chart with more details. Maybe click on a bubble?

On Apr 23, 2012, at 6:47 PM, stewart longreply@reply.github.com wrote:

a visual diagram of the PLOTS community

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151

jywarren commented 12 years ago

OK, I think the latest version looks pretty good. Now where do we put it?

or it's own page?

swylie commented 12 years ago

I have been thinking that we could use these diagrams as ways of actually accessing information on the site. So for instance the tools page could actually be the tool development flow chart, each tool in process could be on the chart relevant to where it is on the process? I think this would help create more conversation between the tools that are in the same development stage.

Perhaps this concept is harder to apply to the overall structure diagram but it might be a good way to organize the "about" information? clicking in staff tells you about all the staff, clicking working groups tell you about all the working groups?

One immediate draw back of this approach is it moves away from the easily editable form of the wiki-pages to add this kind of graphical interface.

adamdgriffith commented 12 years ago

I think it could go on all three pages and should go on the about and getting started pages.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeffrey Warren < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

OK, I think the latest version looks pretty good. Now where do we put it?

or it's own page?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5772903

Adam Griffith Director of Science and Coastal Environments publiclaboratory.org 828.321.2326

jywarren commented 12 years ago

OK, it's on /about and /wiki/getting-started

how does that look?

ebarry commented 12 years ago

looks good!

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Warren < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

OK, it's on /about and /wiki/getting-started

how does that look?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5789516

@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry

adamdgriffith commented 12 years ago

looks great!

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Liz Barry < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

looks good!

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Jeffrey Warren < reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

OK, it's on /about and /wiki/getting-started

how does that look?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5789516

@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jywarren/plots/issues/151#issuecomment-5849277

Adam Griffith Director of Science and Coastal Environments publiclaboratory.org 828.321.2326

jywarren commented 12 years ago

closing