Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Prepare for v0.0.3
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
  1. Close #2
  1. Close #6
  1. Move community pilot section to engagement
  1. fix spelling mistakes
  • Loading branch information
@brucellino
brucellino committed May 16, 2017
1 parent 30d7aaf commit b34261b
Showing 1 changed file with 34 additions and 54 deletions.
88 changes: 34 additions & 54 deletions D2.3-UF.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ This document is a deliverable of the Sci-GaIA project, which has received fundi
4. [The forum as part of Sci-GaIA's engagement strategy](#the-forum-as-part-of-sci-gaias-engagement-strategy)
1. [The forum as means to drive identity federations](#the-forum-as-means-to-drive-identity-federations)
2. [Online Engagement at Offline Events](#online-engagement-at-offline-events)
3. [Community pilot role](#community-pilot-role)
5. [The user forum in numbers and figures](#the-user-forum-in-numbers-and-figures)
1. [Users](#users)
1. [User Acquisition](#user-acquisition)
Expand All @@ -72,9 +73,7 @@ This document is a deliverable of the Sci-GaIA project, which has received fundi
7. [Novel uses of the forum](#novel-uses-of-the-forum)
1. [Discussion site for online learning](#discussion-site-for-online-learning)
2. [Questions and Answers](#questions-and-answers)
3. [As part of the Open Science Platform](#as-part-of-the-open-science-platform)
4. [Community pilot](#community-pilot)
5. [Comments engine for the website and blogs](#comments-engine-for-the-website-and-blogs)
3. [Comments engine for the website and blogs](#comments-engine-for-the-website-and-blogs)
8. [Conclusion and Recommendations](#conclusion-and-recommendations)
1. [Recommendations to other initiatives](#recommendations-to-other-initiatives)
2. [Sustainability of the forum](#sustainability-of-the-forum)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -135,17 +134,14 @@ The web offers a very rich choice of means for cultivating communities, both "op
Their adoption rates speak for themselves.
Often communities are enticed by "walled gardens" - platforms which provide closed, configurable environments which can be customised towards any particular end-use.
Examples of these would be creating a Facebook group, a Slack instance, or a private Sub-Reddit.
The "Free Code Camp" for example is a worldwide community of students of all levels interested in developing non-profit start-ups, and uses a series of Facebook groups for organising their local camps. Slack has seen immense adoption, as has WhatsApp, however, these do not leave a lasting record on the open web.

Arguably the best two platforms on the web for engaging around specific topics or technologies are Reddit and Stack Exchange.
Reddit has roughly
<!-- TODO : How many technical Sub-Reddit are there ? -->
active technical communities (Sub-Reddit).
<!-- TODO : How many Reddit users are there ? -->
Stack Exchange is the technical question and answer site par-excellence on the web, with over
<!-- TODO how many Stack Exchange sites are there ? --> specific sites. The most relevant ones for us had active users
as follows :
<!-- TODO check the most relevant Stack Exchange sites -->
The "Free Code Camp"^[Free Code Camp provides many services similar to Sci-GaIA, such as online learning, community support and mentorship. See http://freecodecamp.com] for example is a worldwide community of students of all levels interested in developing non-profit start-ups, and uses a series of Facebook groups for organising their local camps.
Slack has seen immense adoption, as has WhatsApp, however, these do not leave a lasting record on the open web^[We discuss how these tools can nevertheless be used in [Section 4.3](#community-pilot-role)]

Arguably the best two platforms on the open web for engaging around specific topics or technologies are Reddit and Stack Exchange.
Perhaps a possible strategy could be to co-opt one of these platforms ?
For example [`/r/open_science`](https://www.reddit.com/r/Open_Science/) - moderated by members of [ScienceOpen](https://www.scienceopen.org)^[ScienceOpen is a freely accessible research network to discover and evaluate scientific information.] has 1 269 subscribers^[These numbers were obtained at the time of submission and are subject to volatility. Historical metrics are available at [redditmetrics.com/r/openscience](http://redditmetrics.com/r/openscience) ], and has been active since 2009.

[Stack Exchange](https://stackexchange.com) is the technical Q&A site par-excellence on the web, with over 160 specific sites dedicated to focussed communities^[At the time of writing, the figure was 166. New sites migrate out of the Area51 incubation phase periodically. For See [stackexchange.com/sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites)]. The most relevant ones for us had active users as follows :

| Site | Questions | Active Users |
| :------------- | :------------- | :-----------------------|
Expand All @@ -156,9 +152,10 @@ Stack Exchange is the technical question and answer site par-excellence on the w

It would have been very tempting to simply start a Sub-Reddit, or use a tag on Stack Exchange to provide the Sci-GaIA User Forum.
The algorithms which power these services have evolved over years and via the interactions of hundreds of millions of users to be as efficient as possible in guiding desired community interaction and user behaviour, as well as to surface quality, relevant information whilst diminish the background noise.
Perhaps the most compelling attraction is the _longevity_ of these services, which are almost guaranteed to live past the end of the Sci-GaIA project.

However, in the final analysis, they _do not provide the service required_.
We needed a service over which we could maintain control and agility, putting it to work to serve the specific purposes of the communities we identified, in the time-line allowed by the project.
<!-- TODO - how EGI and other projects do not have fora -->
We discuss these parameters in the following section.

## Design Criteria
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -242,6 +239,21 @@ In the real world, many users did not have access to local identity providers, b

<!-- https://analytics.googleblog.com/2009/08/back-to-basics-direct-referral-or.html -->

## Community pilot role

Much discussion and chatter takes place in private communication, ever more so given the rise of community chat rooms.
The most pervasive of these is [Slack](http://www.slack.com) - a chat service based on IRC, made all the more powerful through an API allowing integration of almost arbitrary tools.
The ease with which virtual control rooms can be created in Slack, integrating the suite of tools used by any particular community, makes it an irresistible tool.
The downside of such tools, however, is that they tend to pull users' data and interactions into a closed environment, which is detrimental to the commons.
A kind of "tiered" communication model would be desirable, where fast, immediate interaction is had in a slack channel, addressing specific, pressing topics, whilst _discussion_ is gently nudged off into the forum.
Typically this kind of community policy takes shape slowly, and on a case-by-case basis, depending on the community.
Sci-GaIA and AAROC have promoted the policy of gently guiding such discussion towards the forum, and out of private communications.
This usually takes the role of a "pilot" discussion, guiding the discussion until it is felt that a public exchange is appropriate^[Almost always the particular issue - which felt very personal to those involved - had wider ramifications.] Whether it was researchers asking for help and support, or issues of policy, or technical matters, the community pilot's job was to attempt to re-frame the issue in a general way, and encourage posting it as a topic of discussion to the forum.
We have recently implemented an automated version of this, whereby a bot monitors certain channels for lengthy discussions, and automatically opens a topic for discussion around that topic on the forum, asking those involved to move their discussion.
The general principle is :
> If something is worth discussing, it's worth discussion in the open

# The user forum in numbers and figures

In this section, we summarise the impact of the forum with a few representative metrics.
Expand All @@ -253,25 +265,11 @@ In this section, we summarise the impact of the forum with a few representative
| Discussion Topics | 652 |
| Posts | 3.1k |

<!-- <table>
<tr>
<td>Users</td><td>221</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Moderators</td><td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Discussion Topics</td><td>652</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Posts</td><td> > 3.1k </td>
</tr>
</table> -->

## Users

<!-- Total number of users, and when they registered -->
At the time of writing, the forum has **221** user accounts registered - more than double the initial KPI specified by the project proposal. These users have been registered cumulatively over time.
<!-- TODO discussion - what does this number mean ? -->

### User Acquisition

Expand All @@ -297,9 +295,10 @@ This was done for two reasons :

![User provenance over the course of the project (April 2015 - May 2017)](images/GA-Users-geo-cities.png){#fig:3 width=16cm}

<!-- TODO -->

We can surmise from the image that the main sources of our users are
We can surmise from the image that the main sources of community members is from West, Southern and Eastern Africa.
Good correspondence can be seen between the cities where Sci-GaIA has held events (Lagos, Maputo, Pretoria, Cape Town, Nairobi, Dar es-Salaam, Addis Ababa).
The two large sources in Scandinavia correspond to Stockholm and Oslo respectively, which were the locations of the main partners in some of the supported communities in Sci-GaIA : the TTA, iGRID, MURIA, and WIMEA-ICT.
Here we can see the strong use of the forum by these communities.

## Trust levels and community leaders

Expand All @@ -317,10 +316,7 @@ Contributions can come in many forms, such as
* translating topics
* sharing topics created by others on social networks in order to increase visibility, _etc_.

As we discuss later, these contributions are recognised by specific badges, but taken in their entirety, they the platform to identify active members and reward their contributions appropriately. Table
<!-- TODO insert table ref -->
summarises the requirements for ascending trust levels.

As we discuss later, these contributions are recognised by specific badges, but taken in their entirety, they the platform to identify active members and reward their contributions appropriately.

1. **Trust Level 1 : Users can send private messages.** This level allows users to use the internal messaging system of the forum, and promotes them for engaging rather than just reading. This is unlocked after users have
1. started 5 topics and
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -419,23 +415,6 @@ Visitors to a topic can quickly determine if it relates to their issue or questi
The ability to mark topics as questions is available to all Level 1 users, however only users of trust level 2 are able to mark posts as solutions, providing a level of quality to these solutions.
This facility marks another difference between the African e-Infrastructure discussion forum and similar mailing lists.

## As part of the Open Science Platform



## Community pilot

Much discussion and chatter takes place in private communication, ever more so given the rise of community chat rooms.
The most pervasive of these is [Slack](http://www.slack.com) - a chat service based on IRC, made all the more powerful through an API allowing integration of almost arbitrary tools.
The ease with which virtual control rooms can be created in Slack, integrating the suite of tools used by any particular community, makes it an irresistible tool.
The downside of such tools, however, is that they tend to pull users' data and interactions into a closed environment, which is detrimental to the commons.
A kind of "tiered" communication model would be desirable, where fast, immediate interaction is had in a slack channel, addressing specific, pressing topics, whilst _discussion_ is gently nudged off into the forum.
Typically this kind of community policy takes shape slowly, and on a case-by-case basis, depending on the community.
Sci-GaIA and AAROC have promoted the policy of gently guiding such discussion towards the forum, and out of private communications.
This usually takes the role of a "pilot" discussion, guiding the discussion until it is felt that a public exchange is appropriate^[Almost always the particular issue - which felt very personal to those involved - had wider ramifications.] Whether it was researchers asking for help and support, or issues of policy, or technical matters, the community pilot's job was to attempt to re-frame the issue in a general way, and encourage posting it as a topic of discussion to the forum.
We have recently implemented an automated version of this, whereby a bot monitors certain channels for lengthy discussions, and automatically opens a topic for discussion around that topic on the forum, asking those involved to move their discussion.
The general principle is :
> If something is worth discussing, it's worth discussion in the open



Expand All @@ -460,6 +439,7 @@ At the end of the project, the experience of developing the forum and gathering
The adaptability of the forum as a student support and feedback service, and later as a technical discussion site, promotes the formation of enduring relationships.
Students supported in the winter school, and later participants in the e-Research Hackfest and Bootcamps could better collaborate with their own peers in research communities, including those directly supported by Sci-GaIA in WP2.
The use of the forum as a comments engine on the website supported the work of dissemination in WP4.
The metrics shown in [Section X](#the-user-forum-in-numbers-and-figures)

1. **The forum is a powerful driver of identity federations**
The choice to allow authentication exclusively via identity federation was an unusual one.
Expand Down

0 comments on commit b34261b

Please sign in to comment.