# We are an open community
**URL:** https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79
**Category:** Open Source Design meta
**Created:** [April 13, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79 "2017-04-13T16:48:45Z")
**Posts on this page:** 15
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@simonv3](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/simonv3)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/1 "2017-04-13T16:48:45Z")
But what does that mean?
As part of our bylaws we should clarify what it means for us to be an open community. This might have avoided some misunderstandings. I was thinking something short like:
> We are an open community. Any conversation or decisions that impact the future of our community need to be available to as large a part of our community and the general public as possible.
Then with an elaboration:
> - conversations that impact the community should not happen in invite-only spaces.
> - content should be accessible (ADA accessible? ie. text to speech software should be able to parse it)
> - As best as we can we should use software that follows [Free, Libre, and Open](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software) definitions and standards.
Thoughts? Elaborations?
---
### Author:  [@jan](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/jan)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/2 "2017-04-13T22:42:32Z")
Nice, sounds good! š We can of course adjust the details as we go along but in the interest of moving and improving we should start out with that.
---
### Author:  [@jan](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/jan)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 11:52am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/3 "2017-04-14T11:52:53Z")
And we should clarify that of course exempt from this are sensitive matters like Code of Conduct violations, in which case core -at- [opensourcedesign.net](http://opensourcedesign.net) should be contacted. š
We should also change that on the CoC site, and list the people who are part of that list there.
---
### Author:  [@simonv3](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/simonv3)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/4 "2017-04-14T14:30:32Z")
My concern with that is that someone should be able to reach out to an individual for a Code of Conduct violation. What if itās someone on the ācoreā e-mail list whoās doing the violating? (not that I think anyone will, just, you know, what if).
---
### Author:  [@jan](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/jan)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/5 "2017-04-14T14:51:23Z")
Yeah, thought that too. Hence we should say that in doubt, any of the people on the list can also be contacted individually (similar to the ppl on the page now). Iād just like to increase that list and match it with the core@ for consistency š
---
### Author:  [@simonv3](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/simonv3)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/6 "2017-04-14T16:50:29Z")
Sounds good. Iāll do a PR š
---
### Author:  [@studiospring](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/studiospring)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2017, 6:26am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/7 "2017-04-15T06:26:26Z")
Great idea! Couple of suggestions. This declaration could be clearer by removing any risk of conflation of openness in software with openness in a community. I will distinguish the two here by using the terms _libre_ software/design and _transparent_ community, though the by-laws may use different terminology.
One point of difference, software is forkable, but a community, not so much. We do not want a community to which we belong to be āmodifiedā in an opaque manner or for unannounced reasons, but we donāt care (and sometimes are happy) if a fork of our design/software is modified for whatever reason and depending on the license, whatever manner.
Another way to better understand what kind of community we want is to ask ourselves why we value openness/transparency so much. It may have been self-evident at the beginning, but it is useful for the general public and as a reminder for established members. I am surprised that there is no explanation of the value of open sourcing design and the value of a transparent community on the OSD site. So, letās fix that and inform others of the benefits of libre design and a transparent community.
Why do we value openness so much? For me:
In software:
- altruism
- fosters innovation
- allows solutions to be tailored to individual needs
- encourages collaboration (many eyeballsā¦), not competition
Organisationally:
- encourages (but does not guarantee) equality among members
- provides accountability
- enables and encourages participation and collaboration
- forms the foundation for democratic process
Understanding the reasons behind our values ensures that our by-laws and actions truly are in line with our values.
May I suggest a catchy title for our By-laws:
**Open source. Open community. Open mind.**
Iāll leave āopen mindā open for discussion.
---
### Author:  [@studiospring](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/studiospring)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2017, 6:36am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/8 "2017-04-15T06:36:13Z")
> [@simonv3](#):
>
> What if itās someone on the ācoreā e-mail list whoās doing the violating?
I doubt that Discourse has such functionality, but it would be great if there were a private šØ Complaints category where topics were only visible to the original poster and staff. Discourse is better for discussion than email and such an arrangement would provide transparency since there will probably be staff who are not ācoreā members.
---
### Author:  [@simonv3](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/simonv3)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/9 "2017-04-15T17:05:56Z")
For this specific thing of private complaints - Discourse offers private messages between multiple people. Wouldnāt that be enough?
The issue here isnāt that private conversations happen. The issue is that decisions that affect our community as a whole shouldnāt happen in closed spaces.
I like your breakdown of why we believe āopenā / ātransparencyā is important. Do you think we should add those things to the by-laws, or should we keep them concise? Maybe we can have āread-moreā toggles? (can we still use markdown in that case?)
Do you think we need to add the clarification that open-ness in this instance refers to transparency? (Because I agree, it does).
I think another reason for doing open-ness in organizations is that it shows when stuff goes wrong or when it works so that everyone can learn from it. It fosters innovation in community building by bringing more ideas to the table.
---
### Author:  [@jan](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/jan)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/10 "2017-04-16T15:23:16Z")
Code of Conduct violations and the like should work via email and not require someone to sign up for an account on our forums here. They can happen on any other platform of ours or at meetups too. Hence the core@ email address, and the individual people below.
---
### Author:  [@studiospring](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/studiospring)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/11 "2017-04-17T00:23:18Z")
> [@simonv3](#):
>
> Do you think we should add those things to the by-laws, or should we keep them concise?
I think the reasons why we value openness and transparency should be on the About page or even the home page since it is central to what OSD is and can persuade and inform the general public of our cause. These could be linked to the by-laws. They inform the by-laws, but they are not the by-laws.
> [@simonv3](#):
>
> Do you think we need to add the clarification that open-ness in this instance refers to transparency?
Yes. I also think we should get rid of the point about using FLOSS, for the same reason. Also, it may send the wrong message to Mac and Windows users š.
---
### Author:  [@studiospring](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/studiospring)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/12 "2017-04-17T00:35:25Z")
Good point, but it does not address @simonv3ās point about core member violations, at least in its current form.
Another issue with using private messages (and email), it is not easy to make a complaint anonymously, if we want to support that.
Lots of things to think about!
---
### Author:  [@simonv3](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/simonv3)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2017, 12:42am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/13 "2017-04-17T00:42:35Z")
> [@studiospring](#):
>
> I also think we should get rid of the point about using FLOSS, for the same reason. Also, it may send the wrong message to Mac and Windows users š.
I assume youāre referring to:
> As best as we can we should use software that follows Free, Libre, and Open definitions and standards.
I think for the intents of organizing our community itās still important and relevant, and an important thing to note as part of our organization and how we get things done. But maybe it can be changed to
> For purposes of organizing our community and how it operates - we should use software that follows Free, Libre, and Open definitions and standards as best we can.
Or maybe that first bit is just at the beginning of the list of bullets:
> For purposes of organizing and operating our community:
>
> - list of points
We also encourage Mac and Windows users to make the switch to open source software, but thatās not for the by-laws.
---
### Author:  [@jan](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/jan)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2017, 8:15am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/14 "2017-04-17T08:15:08Z")
@studiospring thatās why I said above that the members of the core list should also be listed below and stated that they can be contacted individually. š [We are an open community](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/5)
---
### Author:  [@grahamperrin](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/u/grahamperrin)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2017, 6:03am UTC](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/we-are-an-open-community/79/15 "2017-05-12T06:03:00Z")
## Now public
- [Guidelines, Terms of Service, OSD by-laws, OSD code of conduct](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/guidelines-terms-of-service-osd-by-laws-osd-code-of-conduct/19) (2017-04-07)
ā I refrained from publication only because I needed to clarify something in Discourse Meta.
## Hidden
- [Open Source Design brand, identity, logo, name and acronym](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/open-source-design-brand-identity-logo-name-and-acronym/30)
- [Keeping members of the Open Source Design organisation in GitHub informed about Discourse developments](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/keeping-members-of-the-open-source-design-organisation-in-github-informed-about-discourse-developments/31)
- [Discourse site title](https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/t/discourse-site-title/17)
### Related
> **[When to unlist, make private message, close, and delete](https://meta.discourse.org/t/when-to-unlist-make-private-message-close-and-delete/57098/2?u=grahamperrin)**
>
> Close: discussion is too contentious, not going in a productive direction, endless. Delete: discussion is harmful / hurtful, went in a flat out wrong direction, needs to be restarted from square zero Unlist: Possible security implications, or not...