From aabaf19a91abe980e7581611b228c1fd6c17b5bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Holdgraf Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 23:29:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Kinds of openness twitter directive --- blog/2018/kinds-of-openness.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/blog/2018/kinds-of-openness.md b/blog/2018/kinds-of-openness.md index c2e400da..92e82dc4 100644 --- a/blog/2018/kinds-of-openness.md +++ b/blog/2018/kinds-of-openness.md @@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ as a marketing term to increase support, users, or resources. I was thinking about this the other day, so decided to take to twitter: -{% twitter https://twitter.com/choldgraf/status/1054478362209480704 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/choldgraf/status/1054478362209480704 +``` I was surprised at how much this question resonated with people. Here are a few highlights from the (very interesting) conversation that came out of that question. @@ -26,7 +27,8 @@ highlights from the (very interesting) conversation that came out of that questi Tal immediately brought up a really important point: many projects *want* to be inclusive and welcoming to others, but they don't have time to do so. -{% twitter https://twitter.com/talyarkoni/status/1054484496769314818 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/talyarkoni/status/1054484496769314818 +``` I think this is an important distinction, and something that should be signaled clearly. One the one hand, if a person generally wants others to contribute to @@ -47,7 +49,8 @@ That leaves open the question: "how do we measure the **practical** openness of rather than just what it **says**?". A few folks mentioned that the CHAOSS project does a lot of work in this gneeral space: -{% twitter https://twitter.com/abbycabs/status/1054492219808403457 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/abbycabs/status/1054492219808403457 +``` CHAOSS defines standards for metrics to collect about communities. They don't necessarily say what others should **do** with those metrics, so perhaps that's on the open community @@ -68,7 +71,8 @@ project have a permissive license." There was also a specific metric around governance that's worth highlighting: -{% twitter https://twitter.com/GeorgLink/status/1054621070945329152 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/GeorgLink/status/1054621070945329152 +``` The paper linked above is a study that investigated "open governance" in a number of open-source mobile projects. It's an interesting exploration of the ways that @@ -79,7 +83,8 @@ conclude that "more open" projects are most-likely to be successful in the long Finally, apparently there's also a "badge" to signal the status of a repository (is it active, vaporware, abandoned, etc): -{% twitter https://twitter.com/parente/status/1055053470808580098 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/parente/status/1055053470808580098 +``` I'd love to see more of these semi-automated signals to help guide the open source community in deciding what projects to adopt and contribute to. As more and more people do @@ -92,7 +97,8 @@ make these decisions easier. One of the most fascinating links I found was Mozilla's "archetypes of open projects" document: -{% twitter https://twitter.com/neuromusic/status/1054517145436975104 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/neuromusic/status/1054517145436975104 +``` Briefly, this is an internal document that Mozilla made public. It attempts to define the different kinds of open projects that exist. Importantly, it also explains the @@ -109,7 +115,8 @@ On that note, I want to give a brief shout-out to Mozilla in general, which has either conducted or sponsored a bunch of interesting work in open projects. For example, they have a whole wiki dedicated to working openly: -{% twitter https://twitter.com/alex__morley/status/1054483982040121344 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/alex__morley/status/1054483982040121344 +``` and they also run lots of training and community programs such as the [Mozilla Open Leaders](https://foundation.mozilla.org/opportunity/mozilla-open-leaders/) program. @@ -120,7 +127,8 @@ Project Jupyter is in this year's cohort and [keeping track of its progress here A final note on the importance of ethnography: -{% twitter https://twitter.com/mmmpork/status/1054745690897711104 %} +```{socialpost} https://twitter.com/mmmpork/status/1054745690897711104 +``` For all of my talk about metrics above, I've come to appreciate that numbers are **never** sufficient to describe the complexities of a community or group.