What yould you like to see on the website openappecosystem.cc ?

Perhaps links to organisations that are interested.

You can used www.Sensorica.Co ( http://www.Sensorica.Co )

The website is online ! https://openappecosystem.cc/
For any suggestions, you can directly comment at the bottom of the website pages.

Anyone can contribute directly on the website.
You can register, login and manage your account here :
https://openappecosystem.cc/my-account/
Ask me for the password (contact @@@ marc.fun)

Once you're logged in, you can edit and add pages : https://openappecosystem.cc/wp-admin/edit.php?post_type=page

@tiberiusbrastavice : I have created this page : https://openappecosystem.cc/links/
Feel free updating it !

If somebody has knowledge in Wordpress and would like to be co-administrator with me, just ask for it !

I'm taking time to engage thoughtfully because I believe that everyone here has great goals. :)

I don't know how likely the website is (yet) to have visitors who have not participated in related Loomio discussions. (I do appreciate the "Website under construction" disclaimer!) I'm guessing that the website is still considered a rough draft, and currently composed more as a "request for comments" among Loomio discussants than for "the general public"?

BTW, for whatever it's worth, I distinguish subtly but deeply between the concepts of RFC and FYI. For example, I'm hyperlinking those (and other) terms here to Modular Organization Terminology, but I'm doing that as an FYI and not as an RFC. :)

Anyway, I recommend being selective about the website-related conversations which you intentionally create, but not acting very privately nor secretly. I also recommend intentionally developing a portal which will function as a public invitation to participate. (And, I think that developing that invitation is going to be a deep ongoing creative and social challenge.)

With that in mind, I offer a small suggestion regarding this bit:

This ecosystem will enable : * the new economic and social system to come.

I'll be fussy with words here! I think it'd be inappropriate to consistently (if ever) suggest that the Open App Ecosystem will be a required enabling component in the new economic and social system to come. Why? Because IMO we don't need one system which unites us globally, except (arguably) a shared system of developing and supporting basic human rights.

We don't need to develop systems which any specific types of agent will be expected to use in most contexts. However, we should IMO develop an open source system of protocols which can be useful for all agents who truly want to develop and support open, inclusive systems.

If systemic specifications are reasonably flexible, then I think that the system will facilitate useful collaboration within any specific "open ecosystems" , within any divergent systems, and upon the development of related media resources.

Hope that makes sense, and of course please share any questions or comments.

So anyway, here's my suggested preliminary wording for that short section:

Create an ecosystem of interconnected independent open source applications which are easy to use, install, configure and contribute to. This ecosystem will facilitate
* the emergence of open, inclusive economic and social systems
* connection between people who build and use open systems
* collaboration in general

@gregorycassel I agree with that, especially that we should not get into requiring this that and the other. Rather we should humbly state our goals.

Note we put together our words in a small collective process meant to communicate mostly with each other, and I'm sure it can all be improved by some more thoughtfulness. If you have time, you would be a big help in that area.

Sorry for responding so late. I really don't have time enough to discus a lot, so please send me an email on contact @@@@ marc.fun if you need an answer for something.
For @gregorycassel suggestion, create an account on the website as described upper on this thread and change the text directly. You can also comment on the website. I will have no time to write all that on the website my self, sorry.

Hi, when reading through the backlog of the increased conversation in this group from last month, I had left some notes on the website card in WeKan.

It seems I was shooting to early, as the site is already online.

If the collective process is doing the website as a static one, collaborating via git is an option for me. (Bob asked so nicely to do something together.) I don't know how it feels for you, but investing in yet another WordPress, whose themes, plugins and core versions need to be updated quite frequently, feels like putting too much effort at the wrong place.

The site must be beautiful, yes. It must also contain all important aspects, yes. But must it be generated due to its frequently changing content by a permanently running web process and an associated database, or is fetching files that are unregularily updated from a file system a bad choice?

Go, check out that card for, if you are interested in more argumentation regarding the action in question.

I think we need to define what the web site is for?

I made this plan for a new CTA website (a few months ago):

The specific purposes of which are to:
1. To provide a public facing destination for the CTA / OAE
2. To encourage people who are looking into OAE / CTA to get involved
3. To build on the original work of the CTA - including use of the "Seal" which imho is a great way to encourage "buy in"... and grow awareness
4. To ensure people that join agree with the principles and values - (this could obviously also include the groups "rules" @gregorycassel has (wisely) been suggesting
5. To, possibly, provide some of the "match making" between existing OEA projects and potential Volunteers for these (which has now been partially implemented in the Weekan - imho the Weekan is not the best place for this)

Very interested in feedback on this...

btw, i'm loving the "doocracy" mentality but do think some discussions about "how" (especially in regards to the tech architecture) are essential before action - so very happy to see that chat developing)

I've only been away for a week and there has been so much development here I am really encouraged :)

@olisb nice to see you back!

To provide a public facing destination for the CTA / OAE

I think it would be really good to see if we can merge CTA and OAE. But referencing the discussion we've had on unifying our values and goals, I think we would need to do some of that first. For example, there is the good ol' open source litmus test. After a huge discussion in Hylo CTA, we finally got to this statement for the seal: "We commit to move towards increased openness of source code, content and data through open or reciprocity-based licensing." That isn't good enough for me. I can't recommend to any group software that isn't flat out open source forever, and if hosted, open data. This is too high risk for the group. So then I can't support the seal, it becomes meaningless as something people I work with can rely on. But for some key CTA founders, this went too far and was only grudgingly put into the seal doc. A sign of different goals, different enough that I think we could probably work jointly on some projects, but not unify the groups / websites without some clarifying discussion and agreement. (I'm not at all against people trying to make a living out of this stuff, and there's a whole discussion there which would be interesting to have somewhere - but I think a clear focus on building the commons vs building startups is needed.)

Interested in your and others' thoughts....

Thanks @lynnfoster can you point me to where "We commit to move towards increased openness of source code, content and data through open or reciprocity-based licensing." was agreed?

Anyway - the point was more about getting CTA going again - or rather, to use a website for a purpose, not just a shop window which nobody will look at.

I've made a proposal over here https://www.loomio.org/p/B1aEHyc3/lets-re-launch-the-cta

which I hope people will participate in... even if we do have to go back to discussing values etc I think the original work that was completed in the CTA should not be ignored or forgotten

can you point me to where "We commit to move towards increased openness of source code, content and data through open or reciprocity-based licensing." was agreed?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1afRGCfjj-SyqHyabraJgpeYO6QKSA-brMFUR8yB7f1o/edit?usp=sharing

That's the seal doc, you could search for "openness".

Here is an extremely long (kept coming back to life!) discussion on open source.

https://www.hylo.com/p/12131