Continuing the discussion from How to add a pad to the narratives space?:
Yikes! For me this sounds very exciting. I’m very interested in knowing what you consider communication and collaboration, and how they differ. Is it the different kinds of artefacts, that they produce? The one entities being messages in various streams, the other being shared electronic resources, that may be documents, media or other forms of interactive computational means.
What is at your disposal is listed in the green boxes on degrowth.net. It also hints at a deeper documentation, that is still going to be written on learn.degrowth.net. For us at the @noc remains the laborious task of writing it. What I can say for now is the following:
is your one stop shop for exchanging to the minute updates with your peers, and for joyfully interacting loosely with federating groups.
is your place of accountable and structured exchange with interested parties in various levels of privacy. It is a place where third parties can look up current discourses, and may provide thoughtful advice to the point.
is your interaction point with elders that wish to be informed by receiving messages passively. Here you have slow and unstructured conversation about large scale perspectives on ongoing matters.
is your data vault for documents that do else not fit on the web. You can store files of any kind, and keep your contacts and calendars synced with your devices.
To follow up with what is yet to come, I suggest we have a collective look at the current situation and write about the current situations in:
With the chat.degrowth.net service emerging, we are close to finishing the first wave of suggested online facilites for collective production. Another aspect that is going to be implemented before the launch is a so-called identity provider, a single source of truth for usernames and passwords. WIth extending the basic available system to contemporary federated identity providers, we will also be able to offer single sign-on for all associated and supported services.
When we acknwledge that the flows of our information streams represent quite literally the inclusion and exclusion mechanisms of a given discourse, we come to regard the structures emerging from such activity as malleable only if being named. The authority lies in how we name things, and how these are helping to be accessible and useful resources for others. Right now we have squeezed all discussion in the Agora into the #group-assembly-process category, and new children are already forseeable. Would there be an option to consider the whole Agora as the space in which the Group Assemblies convene? Then we can move all groups one level up in the hierarchy, and earn the option to have publicly visible first-level discussion spaces, all with icon, description and so on, and below them categories with private organisation spaces.