Splitting - Text for us and for communicating to the outside #33
Comments
|
Hey Guys I agree with almost everything, will just add something that is
not clear at the moment for the audience:
Alex, Julieta and Andre will create a new curriculum in an open
collaboration with other participants, they feel they want to significantly
change the approach, contents, and so on, based on their experiences and
expectations about how the program should be. For this purpose
the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a
community effort, as originally conceived, will be used. Jose has expressed
he will not participate in this process because he prefers to continue
polishing and making small adjustments to the 1st cohort structure.
Why is this important to clarify? Some mentees recommend this program as it
is, therefore it is good that people no which will continue or maintain the
current appraoch. For your new journey this makes it easier for other
mentors and mentees that want to join you in making a new curriculum with
your approach and vision.
I plan to change the name to "open hardware devs", I want you to let you
know in advance.
Thanks for putting this together I feel is getting somewhere and I honestly
feel much more relieved.
Thanks also to @alex he has put a lot of effort and good will.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
…On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:53 PM juli arancio ***@***.***> wrote:
@vektorious <https://github.com/vektorious>, @amchagas
<https://github.com/amchagas> and me reviewed the text sent by @jurra
<https://github.com/jurra>
We propose the following, combining his input with ours:
*Open Hardware Leaders, what happens next*
After the graduation of the first cohort and 14 weeks of collaborative
work, the organization team has decided to split ways. The differences in
our vision for a mentorship program like OHL are too significant, taking us
into this joint decision after much effort on working them out.
OHL was initially an idea and an effort of four people (plus all the
volunteers!), and in the spirit of collaboration and openness, we
understand no one owns it. So we propose the experience of OHL stays online
and open as a pilot project, a repository available for anyone to fork.
Considering this experience a collective achievement, we think the
healthiest way to move forward is that the two different ideas for future
hardware programs -one led by Jose Urra and the other one by Andre Chagas,
Alex Kutschera and Juli Arancio-, learn from this experience and start
their own way.
*Agreements:*
We agree that at this point the most healthy and fair decision is to
split, so that each person is free to do what they feel is right, with the
team they want and the people they get along with.
*Fairgrounds for the splitting*
-
For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split
will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has
valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this
-
Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking
the other in achieving their goals.
-
Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 of the program, which the
rest of the organizers plan for 2021.
-
Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by
Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally
conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.
-
OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t
profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points:
both new programs should be renamed.
*Proposal for assets:*
- Twitter account ***@***.***): Julieta has been managing it and
has mainly her contacts, it will be renamed accordingly
- Riot account: José has mostly managed it, we propose to keep it open
for the community
- Website openhardware4.me: José has been mostly operating the website
and can keep doing so
- Logo: made by José, won’t be used by the rest of organizers
- GitHub repository (https://github.com/Open-Hardware-Leaders): the
organizers repository will be made public, and the whole organization’s
account kept as legacy
- Domain openhardware4.me: owned by Andre, we propose to leave it as
legacy with links to the new programs
- Gmail account, including YouTube channel and Google Drive (
***@***.***): this account is linked to Julieta’s phone
and can’t be renamed. We propose both teams to make a copy of all the
material and to keep it as legacy, and that both programs open their
respective accounts. Emails that arrive to the old account can be
automatically forwarded to both new programs.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#33>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AENYNUI2HLN3RTYJSP36NRTRWEDYBANCNFSM4N3SV55A>
.
|
Jose as Alex, Andre and Julieta, is improving the program, the difference is in how. Now it sounds like I am not interested in improving the program at all. With regards to dates, I havent decided yet when in 2020, or if is feasible, so I would announce the date for the next cohort still needs to be decided.
I am also working with our community (of mentors and mentees), (the feedback from mentees, interviews and exchange are part of community work). Our difference is in approach, not in the fact that we will work with a community. Why I say this, now it sounds like I dont care the community or I dont work with the community which is no the case. The style and approach is different. This should be crystal clear.
|
Fair grounds rephrased towards more clarity:
Why these changes?It should be clear what goals and expectations we have:
Messages I dont want to explicitly or implicitly deliver, because they are not accurate or true
|
I'd keep that separated. I rephrased it to clarify that we are talking about different kinds of feedback.
I strongly disagree to specify this here. We have no idea where we will end up after the community review. This sounds like we are developing a new program from scratch. That's not what we intend. I'd keep the previous text. With the additional info about you using the feedback forms to improve it, it should be clear that you are using a different kind of feedback
I'd rephrase it somehow but I like the idea |
|
Sorry 😄 I forgot to thank you for your input! Thanks! I hope my comments/reworks are fine with you :) |
Alex this is unclear in some regards, the previous text I put is clear and explicit. Why is this unclear?
It has to be crystal clear why you want to try a new approach and I want to keep expanding the current approach. That is why you are going to do A and I am doing B. You have said it clearly before, for instance you dont like the design thinking approach, the canvas or value proposition approach, etc, etc. Just be clear about it and explain why you dont like it if necessesary. You are not satisfied with the results, and so on. All these can be said and explained to the public, I really dont mind that you are honest about all these things.
This is an important implication of deciding this. If you have no idea where you will end up is because you have no certainty at all that the current format is good. On the other hand I am confident about it. This is one of the main reasons why we split, you are not certain, I am quite certain on this one. Both grounds are fair to sustain, and that is why among other reasons we decide to go in a different path. That is a main reason why I decided not to engage in the mozilla money. |
José, I think a fundamental concept you are not understanding (or is not reflected in this text) is that we are not aiming for a new complete approach to the program, you are saying so and this, as Alex said, isn't accurate. The situation is not you staying and us going towards a new path, I don't know if this is clear enough. Why are we splitting in A and B?
From a personal point of view and after the discussions we had once the program ended, I'm also splitting in A and B because I think we don't share the same principles for collaborative/team work. This is not a minor thing, we don't have to publicly express it but for us at least it should be clear no? So we are not trying 'a new approach' here, and this is why we're not just making a branch of the original but we agreed on 2 different programs. Your text is implying we are branching from you, and that you're attaching yourself to an 'original idea', but that isn't true.
I think @vektorious didn't express himself well. We have a pretty good idea of where it will end, and we are working towards guiding and facilitating that process. We will end in a collaboratively-made, diverse curriculum that will be openly available for anyone, including us, to use. |
|
On your proposal:
Forms should be anonymized then. People never gave their consent for this. |
|
Some rephrasing, again
|
|
Hi @thessaly I understand the point of not creating a new program. I comeback to this, because it is part of the fair grounds to me: Messages I dont want to explicitly or implicitly deliver, because they are not accurate or true
Message that should be clear:
Rephrasing:Some rephrasing, again
|
|
Hi @jurra, we reviewed your last version of the text and it's ok for us. We only have a comment regarding the opening of the feedback forms. This demands reaching out again to people who completed the survey, asking for consent and anonymize in case they agree to it. We don't want to engage in reaching out again, but you're completely free to do it on your behalf, once we split and Open Hardware Devs is formally running. All, please take a look at the final text below. If you're ok with it I suggest to publish in on openhardware4.me website, and then we can use that to communicate it through email, twitter, etc. Open Hardware Leaders, what happens nextAfter the graduation of the first cohort and 14 weeks of collaborative work, the organization team has decided to split ways. The differences in our vision for a mentorship program like OHL are too significant, taking us into this joint decision after much effort on working them out. OHL was initially an idea and an effort of four people (plus all the volunteers!), and in the spirit of collaboration and openness, we understand no one owns it. So we propose the experience of OHL stays online and open as a pilot project, a repository available for anyone to fork. Considering this experience a collective achievement, we think the healthiest way to move forward is that the two different ideas for future hardware programs -one led by Jose Urra and the other one by Andre Chagas, Alex Kutschera and Juli Arancio-, learn from this experience and start their own way. Agreements:
|
|
Sounds good to me, this is the best we can get |
@vektorious, @amchagas and me reviewed the text sent by @jurra
We propose the following, combining his input with ours:
Open Hardware Leaders, what happens next
After the graduation of the first cohort and 14 weeks of collaborative work, the organization team has decided to split ways. The differences in our vision for a mentorship program like OHL are too significant, taking us into this joint decision after much effort on working them out.
OHL was initially an idea and an effort of four people (plus all the volunteers!), and in the spirit of collaboration and openness, we understand no one owns it. So we propose the experience of OHL stays online and open as a pilot project, a repository available for anyone to fork.
Considering this experience a collective achievement, we think the healthiest way to move forward is that the two different ideas for future hardware programs -one led by Jose Urra and the other one by Andre Chagas, Alex Kutschera and Juli Arancio-, learn from this experience and start their own way.
Agreements:
We agree that at this point the most healthy and fair decision is to split, so that each person is free to do what they feel is right, with the team they want and the people they get along with.
Fairgrounds for the splitting
For the sake of transparency the discussions that led to the split will be made public, together with the organization repository, which has valuable lessons for anyone aiming to run a program like this
Both parties should be able to achieve their goals without blocking the other in achieving their goals.
Jose will carry on a second cohort in 2020 of the program, which the rest of the organizers plan for 2021.
Andre, Alex and Julieta will use the financial support granted by Mozilla to improve the curriculum in a community effort, as originally conceived. Jose has expressed he will not participate in this process.
OHL is not owned by any of the organizers, the new programs shouldn’t profit from previous ‘branding’ as it would create unequal starting points: both new programs should be renamed.
Proposal for assets:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: