Slack archive

jothon

Month: 2023-02

2023-02-01

chihao 11:43:41
那個，面海松今天開會的時候也希望可以在 g0v.hackmd 底下開一個 team :))
@averyying2022 ++ \o/ 我填好申請了！
跟風 XD
mrorz ++ \o/
XDD
好奇～ team 名稱有 英文大小寫 差別嗎？
嗨嗨，HackMD team 已經開好囉！
@chihao https://g0v.hackmd.io/@fto
@mrorz https://g0v.hackmd.io/@cofacts
感謝感謝
chihao 11:43:41
那個，面海松今天開會的時候也希望可以在 g0v.hackmd 底下開一個 team :))
@averyying2022 ++ \o/ 我填好申請了！
跟風 XD
mrorz ++ \o/
XDD
好奇～ team 名稱有 英文大小寫 差別嗎？
嗨嗨，HackMD team 已經開好囉！
@chihao https://g0v.hackmd.io/@fto
@mrorz https://g0v.hackmd.io/@cofacts
感謝感謝
Sam 羅翔鈞 ㄙㄚㄇ 14:46:27
請大家意見。我好像參加過的 g0v 黑客松都沒有看過同一個專案一次報名那麼多提案時間。2/13黑客松有開放 15個報名時間，目前 da0 在用已經報名了7個，那是 47% 欸。我個人感受這樣好像可能對其他專案來說是不太好的。提案是某種有限資源，應該確保大家都能擁有。我猜目前應該沒有什麼限制，我也不想說應該限制別人，可是只是主觀感覺這樣的狀況至少可以拿出來討論一下
大松 2/11（題外話，不要來錯日期唷！🙈）
這麼多！XD
先來湊熱鬧
我覺得正面來說，目前每一位提案者皆不同，這是好的
提案是讓大家開坑用的吧，如果 da0 當天並沒有要開這麼多坑也許可以把提案機會留給其他人？
聽起來像是「保留新的提案名額」這樣？
我覺得當天沒有要協作的專案，可以改到八分鐘短講時分享。
Sam 羅翔鈞 ㄙㄚㄇ 14:46:27
請大家意見。我好像參加過的 g0v 黑客松都沒有看過同一個專案一次報名那麼多提案時間。2/11黑客松有開放 15個報名時間，目前 da0 在用已經報名了7個，那是 47% 欸。我個人感受這樣好像可能對其他專案來說是不太好的。提案是某種有限資源，應該確保大家都能擁有。我猜目前應該沒有什麼限制，我也不想說應該限制別人，可是只是主觀感覺這樣的狀況至少可以拿出來討論一下
大松 2/11（題外話，不要來錯日期唷！🙈）
這麼多！XD
先來湊熱鬧
我覺得正面來說，目前每一位提案者皆不同，這是好的
提案是讓大家開坑用的吧，如果 da0 當天並沒有要開這麼多坑也許可以把提案機會留給其他人？
聽起來像是「保留新的提案名額」這樣？
我覺得當天沒有要協作的專案，可以改到八分鐘短講時分享。
4 😆 3
T.C. HU 17:32:31
@claudia710314 has joined the channel
tai 23:17:38
[g0v 社群日曆修改請求]

之後 #ohshown 聚會想要改成從 Feb 8 開始，每個月（每個月的第二個週三）一次。

calendar title 和內容更新如下：
```OH!SHOWN - 黑熊通報系統定期小聚

專案共筆 Meeting note https://lihi1.cc/VDemi （聚會線上連結在共筆內）```
謝謝有權限更改日曆的朋友幫忙～～
更新囉！
謝謝～～ @averyying2022 請問可以幫我把三月的那個 event 改到 3/15 同一個時段嗎～～ 這是今天的 meetup 結束後大家約的新的時間
改好囉！
tai 23:17:38
[g0v 社群日曆修改請求]

之後 #ohshown 聚會想要改成從 Feb 8 開始，每個月（每個月的第二個週三）一次。

calendar title 和內容更新如下：
```OH!SHOWN - 黑熊通報系統定期小聚

專案共筆 Meeting note https://lihi1.cc/VDemi （聚會線上連結在共筆內）```
謝謝有權限更改日曆的朋友幫忙～～
更新囉！
謝謝～～ @averyying2022 請問可以幫我把三月的那個 event 改到 3/15 同一個時段嗎～～ 這是今天的 meetup 結束後大家約的新的時間
改好囉！
1

2023-02-02

2023-02-03

chewei 18:19:32
專案的訊息模式整理：
• 於 g0v slack 開設系列頻道，如 da0 採用 da0-xxx
• 自建 Slack，如 島島阿學、選前大補帖
• 自建 Discord，如 Cofacts、足跡地圖
• FB Group，如 資料申請小幫手
對於不同方案，初步歸納一些差異
• 能否全文備份
• 能否裝設 app、機器人，以及數量是否有上限
• 專案貢獻者群體對於工具使用的順手程度
歡迎補充!
chewei 18:19:32
專案的訊息模式整理：
• 於 g0v slack 開設頻道
• 於 g0v slack 開設系列頻道，如 da0 採用 da0-xxx
• 自建 Slack，如 島島阿學、選前大補帖
• 自建 Discord，如 Cofacts、足跡地圖
• 使用 FB Group，如 資料申請小幫手
對於不同方案，初步歸納一些差異
• 能否全文備份
• 能否裝設 app、機器人，以及數量是否有上限
• 與 g0v slack 之間的訊息，是否有同步方案，如 Cofacts Discord-general 與 #cofacts 同步
• 專案貢獻者群體，對於該訊息工具使用的順手程度，例如 足跡地圖，蠻多參與者較熟悉 discord 而非 slack
歡迎補充!
文字也整理於 坑主小聚共筆
👍 2

2023-02-04

2023-02-05

chihao 11:32:17
來自 summit 2020 共同召集人之一的提問：不知道 summit 2020 留下的各種紀念品在這次大松能不能派上用場？
例如：如果這次大松是在國教院，是不是會有更多教育相關的提案？不知道 summit 紀念品對這次的參與者會不會有吸引力 XD
cc @pm5 @isabelhou
揪松週二例會討論一下。
isabel jothon ++ 我可以當送貨員（？）
@chihao 想確認一下紀念品的品項和數量
@analeigh.jothon 我不確定 😅
除了杯子和 t-shirt 還有其他項目嗎
我也是記得這兩項
@pm5 有任何 input 嗎
如果方便的話 可以大松當天送到現場唷！
大概想要多少數量呢？
如果可以先確定庫存的數量，這樣會比較好估計
不確定 summit 是想全部出清，或是有其他使用地方嗎
我自己是希望可以逐步送出，降低存活成本
存貨成本 XDD
嗨嗨我們這邊杯子發完了，所以可以再麻煩你明天提供一箱過來嗎？感謝！
@chihao 你明天方便帶杯子嗎？謝謝你
好！我要帶一箱嗎？XD @yiting.lin
帶
好！！！太棒了！！！
這麼棒！XD 我明天早上去拿
上次發給學生，他們很愛！這次會送給參與決選的團隊！
好！大概有多少團隊多少人呢？
目前快 40 位！
哦嗚哇！
chihao 11:32:17
來自 summit 2020 共同召集人之一的提問：不知道 summit 2020 留下的各種紀念品在這次大松能不能派上用場？
例如：如果這次大松是在國教院，是不是會有更多教育相關的提案？不知道 summit 紀念品對這次的參與者會不會有吸引力 XD
cc @pm5 @isabelhou
揪松週二例會討論一下。
isabel jothon ++ 我可以當送貨員（？）
@chihao 想確認一下紀念品的品項和數量
@analeigh.jothon 我不確定 😅
除了杯子和 t-shirt 還有其他項目嗎
我也是記得這兩項
@pm5 有任何 input 嗎
如果方便的話 可以大松當天送到現場唷！
大概想要多少數量呢？
如果可以先確定庫存的數量，這樣會比較好估計
不確定 summit 是想全部出清，或是有其他使用地方嗎
我自己是希望可以逐步送出，降低存活成本
存貨成本 XDD
嗨嗨我們這邊杯子發完了，所以可以再麻煩你明天提供一箱過來嗎？感謝！
@chihao 你明天方便帶杯子嗎？謝謝你
好！我要帶一箱嗎？XD @yiting.lin
帶
好！！！太棒了！！！
這麼棒！XD 我明天早上去拿
上次發給學生，他們很愛！這次會送給參與決選的團隊！
好！大概有多少團隊多少人呢？
目前快 40 位！
哦嗚哇！
ael 21:22:47
那個，我剛剛誤刪了這兩週 g0v 行事曆上的其他小聚。我以為是我個人的行事曆，我想我應該誤刪了 vTaiwan 、島島阿學。@sdfghj1001 @yiting.lin 可以幫忙確認一下嗎 QQ #rentea 和 #ohshown 我不確定。 @ddio @contactfromg0vslack

發生這件事之後，我也去改了 Disfactory 在 g0v 行事曆上的時間，因為現在是雙周聚了。

誤刪原因是，我用了跟 g0v 行事曆同個顏色來標注我想要參加但不一定能參加的活動，而且我以為我沒有 g0v 行事曆的權限。 Sorry，我正在找哪裡看編輯紀錄。我把顏色改掉了，之後應該不會再發生這樣的錯誤。同時我把該行事曆對我的通知中，活動改變和活動取消會有 email 通知，這樣也許有人誤刪至少我會收到 email？
我目前看上述專案的聚會沒有被刪掉唷～～～
@aelcenganda rentea 還在（只有這週消失，可以不用復原），但和 ohshown 看起來不見惹 XD
已將二月被誤刪的 ohshown 聚會單筆新增回去囉（ohshown 從本月起改為每個月的第二個星期三聚會）
好像可以整理一下目前 社群日曆編輯權限名單，以及加入機制，例如 專案坑主 也可評估自己是否適合加入至編輯名單，這樣小聚活動的刊登就比較順手

補充之前在 #g0vernance 有開始彙整 社群日曆 的現況資訊
https://g0v-tw.slack.com/archives/CHPAZECAV/p1675330313926489
1 😇 3
ael 21:22:47
那個，我剛剛誤刪了這週 g0v 行事曆上的其他小聚。我以為是我個人的行事曆，我想我應該誤刪了 vTaiwan 、島島阿學。@sdfghj1001 @yiting.lin 可以幫忙確認一下嗎 QQ
#rentea 和 #ohshown 我不確定。 @ddio @contactfromg0vslack

發生這件事之後，我也去改了 Disfactory 的時間，因為現在是雙周聚了。
我目前看上述專案的聚會沒有被刪掉唷～～～
@aelcenganda rentea 還在（只有這週消失，可以不用復原），但和 ohshown 看起來不見惹 XD
已將二月被誤刪的 ohshown 聚會單筆新增回去囉（ohshown 從本月起改為每個月的第二個星期三聚會）
好像可以整理一下目前 社群日曆編輯權限名單，以及加入機制，例如 專案坑主 也可評估自己是否適合加入至編輯名單，這樣小聚活動的刊登就比較順手

補充之前在 #g0vernance 有開始彙整 社群日曆 的現況資訊
https://g0v-tw.slack.com/archives/CHPAZECAV/p1675330313926489

2023-02-06

2023-02-07

chewei 02:15:03
好像可以整理一下目前 社群日曆編輯權限名單，以及加入機制，例如 專案坑主 也可評估自己是否適合加入至編輯名單，這樣小聚活動的刊登就比較順手

補充之前在 #g0vernance 有開始彙整 社群日曆 的現況資訊
https://g0v-tw.slack.com/archives/CHPAZECAV/p1675330313926489

我在社群治理目錄中，新增「g0v 社群活動行事曆」:date: 初步先把已知的 行事曆網址、申請活動刊登方式 等內容填入共筆中，歡迎補充 ! <https://g0v.hackmd.io/vYdTfaYeR7SnIU3zT5evOw?view#g0v-%E6%B4%BB%E5%8B%95%E8%A1%8C%E4%BA%8B%E6%9B%86>

👍 4

2023-02-08

JoeYen 09:59:30
@yenchiayou has joined the channel
salia0923 10:09:55
@salia0923 has joined the channel

2023-02-09

Peter 16:29:19
大家好，我是peter，是這週日零時小學校專案孵化競賽決選的主持人。剛剛我已經把我主持人的講稿完整整理完，放在以下連結最下方的表格中，歡迎大家協助指正與討論！
超級完整！！
太猛啦…
Peter 16:29:19
大家好，我是peter，是這週日零時小學校專案孵化競賽決選的主持人。剛剛我已經把我主持人的講稿完整整理完，放在以下連結最下方的表格中，歡迎大家協助指正與討論！
超級完整！！
太猛啦…
🙌 4 2

2023-02-10

2023-02-11

SeanGau 09:33:29
今天大松提案要開始囉~~
https://youtube.com/live/iPYbR0GBc00
mglee 09:50:01
今天的講台好~~高~~阿~~
😮 1
mglee 09:50:01
今天的講台好~~高~~阿~~
Tiff 09:55:03
真的，昨天站上去有種從山丘俯視平原的感覺哈哈哈
Tiff 09:55:03
真的，昨天站上去有種從山丘俯視平原的感覺哈哈哈
⛰️ 6
Jason致昕 11:17:45
@jsl has joined the channel
HsinYun 馨云 11:19:20
@wendy950210 has joined the channel
Analeigh 12:23:11
2023-02-11 零時小學校直播連結
https://youtube.com/live/bj8001E92hY?feature=share
SeanGau 15:55:20
今天大松成果發表要開始囉~
https://youtube.com/live/fqP8WUEuiaM?feature=share
SeanGau 15:55:20
今天大松成果發表要開始囉~
https://youtube.com/live/fqP8WUEuiaM?feature=share

YouTube

g0v hackath54n - 第伍拾肆次兔兔黑客松 暨 零時小學校專案孵化競賽決選日 - 成果發表

<https://beta.hackfoldr.org/g0v-hackath54n/>

❤️ 3
Peter 16:48:40
感謝大家！順利結束！
感謝 Peter 超專業主持！
感謝 Peter !!
謝謝Peter
感謝大家！
Peter 16:48:40
感謝大家！順利結束！
感謝 Peter 超專業主持！
感謝 Peter !!
謝謝Peter
感謝大家！
6
Sky Hong 16:59:31
想請問之後會有評審針對各組團隊的評語嗎？我們 UniCourse 團隊很有興趣><
這邊有活動直播影片的存檔，可找一下團隊的時間段落
https://www.youtube.com/live/bj8001E92hY?feature=share
Sky Hong 16:59:31
想請問之後會有評審針對各組團隊的評語嗎？我們 UniCourse 團隊很有興趣><
這邊有活動直播影片的存檔，可找一下團隊的時間段落
https://www.youtube.com/live/bj8001E92hY?feature=share
👍 3
Peter 17:01:39
剛剛想到可以把影片丟進逐字稿軟體生紀錄給團隊參考
Peter 17:01:39
剛剛想到可以把影片丟進逐字稿軟體生紀錄給團隊參考
👍 3

2023-02-12

ywklai1210 08:52:50
@ywklai1210 has joined the channel
chewei 20:38:09
坑主小聚相關，嘗試開始整理挖坑的細節流程，先初步用一份 google 簡報當作白板 簡報網址 歡迎加工流程圖
Image 082.png
挖坑的流程圖，加註一些重點
@chewei 那我來把這個翻成英文版 \o/
❤️ 4

2023-02-14

tmonk 16:22:23
禮拜三辦公室有人嗎？要來歸還 jothon 筆電。
嗨嗨，明天（週三）職工都不會進辦公室，後天（週四）10:00 - 17:00 我會在！

下週二下午會在喔！
那我就禮拜四歸還～
好！感謝 tmonk！
tmonk 16:22:23
禮拜三辦公室有人嗎？要來歸還 jothon 筆電。
嗨嗨，明天（週三）職工都不會進辦公室，後天（週四）10:00 - 17:00 我會在！

下週二下午會在喔！
那我就禮拜四歸還～
好！感謝 tmonk！
mrorz 20:17:53
https://grants.g0v.tw/ 500
下午本來要重開治百病，結果重開不能。哭哭。@ronnywang @clkao
mrorz 20:17:53
https://grants.g0v.tw/ 500

HackDash

g0v 公民科技創新獎助金 - g0v 公民科技創新獎助金

每個專案 30-50 萬、8 個月一期、2019/1/13 提案截止

下午本來要重開治百病，結果重開不能。哭哭。@ronnywang @clkao
😮 2 1

2023-02-16

洪浩倫 17:32:04
@dillen9999999999 has joined the channel

2023-02-22

macpaul 09:55:10
@isabelhou @analeigh.jothon 我需要跟公司申請補助計畫和排預算，請問一下2023大松時間表（包含零時小學校）跟（可能的地點）週五前有機會排的出來一下嗎？還是我可以到哪裡看？謝謝
Calendar
2
macpaul 09:55:10
@isabelhou @analeigh.jothon 我需要跟公司申請補助計畫和排預算，請問一下2023大松時間表（包含零時小學校）跟（可能的地點）週五前有機會排的出來一下嗎？還是我可以到哪裡看？謝謝
Calendar

2023-02-25

ael 23:19:18
昨天 g0v.london 開了第一次 co-organizer meeting 。其中有一個想跟大家分享的是，有人擔心歐美人用了 g0v 的名字會有文化挪用（culture appropriation)的問題，就是白人亂代言不尊重台灣文化。我和書漾都覺得還好，我則是說，我一直覺得 g0v 該是世界性的，不限於台灣，我認為用了 g0v 的名字，但是不開放參與，open-washing ，才是真的剝削代言這個文化。書漾則是問說，重點只是開放/開源嗎？

不知道大家怎麼想呢？

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1csmYAXTIr-xNZAs6qNNzx3cVlqe0WjXEpPkZEAkSkuk/edit
culture appropriation 跟 open by default 是兩個分開的討論吧
分開但是時間上連在一起。我加上「針對開放性和開源」，你問是不是只有開源或是開放才是最重要的。希望沒有曲解你的意思>< 我的理解是除了開放之外，也要注重其他價值，以及不能死硬開放
我提出的部分應該是：
在討論 g0v.london 的價值時，在場的人有提到了openness and open source，大家還有沒有其他想到可以 add to the list

並沒有要爭論哪項比較重要
@sylin 同意，就是還有哪些價值
好喔 謝啦！
我覺得得 認同宣言內容 即可～ 涵蓋 開源、沒有人精神、多中心
g0v Manifesto
https://g0v.tw/intl/zh-TW/manifesto/
揪松團有開始討論「如何支援地區小松/海外揪松」，目前先初步列舉事項，也歡迎提供意見 !

請見以下 揪松團的 trello 工作卡片
https://trello.com/c/n2I0amoa
我會有疑慮的是成果掠奪、還有代表性的問題。
另外，g0v.london 和 g0v network 關係是?
g0v.london 是我和 @patcon 在倫敦，根據 Civic Tech Toronto 的 Hacknight 形式加上 g0v 精神，所開始的社群活動。g0v.london 這個 domain 目前是 @patcon 買的，在他名下

g0v.network 是當時包括 @patcon 在內，幾位北美的朋友創立的。我們因為方便，所以目前影片是先上傳到 g0v.network 的 YouTube channel.

@patcon what would you describe the relations of g0v.London and g0v.network?

我覺得 g0vhk.io 或甚至後來義大利也都有。非台灣人用是 OK 甚至被鼓勵的，但應該就是秉持社群一直以來的精神，自己沒參加的事情，不要說是「我們」做過什麼什麼
> we must also pay attention to other values, and we cannot be rigidly open
>
I recall the proposition (by Ian) that openness for one group might be to avoid open source. E.g., open availability to one group might require gdocs. I agree with this. In my home community of Civic Tech Toronto, we just barely talk about open source and essentially never about open licenses.
We instead highly encourage open culture and open project work, and it just happens that everyone uses defacto open source and open license. We don't take it ourselves in our onboarding to teach it though -- ppl seem to just figure it out fine
It's just pretty minimal in our onboarding, that's all
The thought that Ian and I shared (as I recall) was that emphasizing open source and especially types of license early might mean non-technical community contributors have more reason to think "oh, this place is for tech ppl" and then we have to work harder to convince them otherwise
Re: g0v.london and g0v.network

Both domains are managed at this git repo, using a designated cloudflare account that can pretty easily be collectivized. https://link.g0v.network/domains

g0v.network was just something we (me, Liz, CS, Darshana, 5-ish more) felt appropriate when trying to organize non-nationally in 2017 between UK, USA, Canada. We created a GitHub org for tracking issues and a YouTube account for sharing videos. A few of us have admin, but I'm the only one who seems to actively use it :man-shrugging:🏻
Basically just using it for some g0v.london stuff (like repos and videos) bc it seemed silly to create another GitHub org when there was already another unused one? Maybe that's wrong though
I think it’s wrong to characterize using google docs as “not open source”
I think g0v is built on open source
Using the name g0v to me implies value alignment with g0v. The values of g0v are expressed in the g0v Manifesto and open source is clearly part of the Manifesto.
Openness (abstraction) can be expressed in many ways (instance) and in the instance of g0v, it’s open source, or at least based on open source mechanisms (licenses, ways of collaboration…)
To me open source licenses are essential to collaboration in that it avoids (or at least reduces) exploitation - in that that it encourages sharing while gives credit where credit is due. Openness without it is less ideal imo.
To me I worry about the use of the name g0v outside of Taiwan without fully taking on the values of g0v (Manifesto). It’s problematic to me, cultural appropriation or not.
Saying all of this is not me stopping any new initiative but me joining this on-going conversation :p
Re: "essential to collaboration". We don't emphasize it in our 101 intros in Toronto, just working openly. And I feel like open collaboration works fine there, and my sense is that Toronto culture has converged pretty close to what's developed in Taiwan. Essentially every last project ends up being open source. I just don't like to be told I need to emphasize it early, when my experience is that it's not essential to do so <3
I feel resistant to being told (in a personal sense) that I must talk about open source and licenses when introducing our community to new ppl when I host our weekly 101 session. I support others to harp on it as much as they please when they run the session. But my personal sense is that it's unnecessarily tech-centric for my tastes. I'd rather focus on open leadership, and give ppl less reason to think they need to be rooted in technology culture to belong.
I am totally onboard with open leadership and space and more. I think it’s could be misguiding to characterize open source licensing as “tech-centric” though when looking at CC’s adoption in both g0v and the wider creative community.
I am also totally onboard of people running their communities however they see fit. I am only asserting my belief that (the name) g0v and open source (licensing) are tightly connected :)
I also want to share my personal experience as a newbie to g0v in 2014. g0vers at the time reminded me that I need to set a (open) license for my project because that would influence people’s willingness to contribute. That was a very important moment for me.
@patcon I don’t think @ian869 ‘a proposition is that we should “avoid open source” in order to be open. His proposition was, in my understanding, not to exclude not-open-source tools for communication, for instance, it is okay to use Google Doc.

My position is that g0v contributors’ contribution should be clearly stated to be in open source licenses from the very beginning as it is the foundation of open collaboration preventing exploitation. Otherwise, how do people trust strangers to work together? It is the clear understanding that how the collective work would be used that build the trust infrastructure.

I don’t think introducing the idea of open source would be too hard to onboard non-tech contributors. I have done that with many non-tech communities and organisations.

I blame myself that I didn’t make my point firmly and haven’t demonstrated and convinced you that introducing open source is not creating another barrier.

I also suggest we should share the next g0v.london co-organiser meeting time and link to g0v community as the topic here is the roots of what consists of g0v and how a community can use the name of g0v to host events.
I am glad to share with the community that #london-hacknight now is run by a group of co-organisers more than just @patcon and me. @patcon, I think that decentralisation is what we both wanted when we initiated g0v.London civic hacknight.

Therefore, I am going to copy more co-organisers here to understand the contexts and join the discussion

@zf @ruth.wetters @ian869 @james Cattell
我是覺得要用 g0v 這幾個字就好好的跟著 g0v manifesto 做啦，並且跟 jothon 保持聯絡
不然就換別的名字，想要叫 newspeakhouse, civictech.london 還是什麼都好
這件事情現在還是一個不是很裡想的狀態，所以希望訂一個 deadline (比如說4/30) 大家把規則定義清楚，要叫什麼名字，裡面適合怎麼樣的專案等等

這邊也貼上我在WA裏面寫的訊息：

For me, it’s very clear that g0v lives in open source.

So, that means even before this community use the name “g0v”, we should have adopted the spirit of living in open source already.

I am pretty sure it’s not alright to use the name g0v while not align with g0v manifesto…. 🤔 I can understand that this is in a beginning phase… but it’s been four months already!

So here is my opinion -
I think we have two ways out:

1. not call ourselves g0v anymore
2. continue using the name g0v, and start align with the manifesto today

https://g0v.tw/intl/zh-TW/manifesto/en/
``````
“live open source” in g0v refers to:

Project outcomes (including but not limited to text, images, code, data, analysis, and processes) are open-source, allowing more people to use, improve, comment, and maximize their usage.

So all this group needs to commit is only that all the projects in g0v london follows this spirit, and choose a license to take part.

any license from here, except the lower right corner saying “i don’t want to choose a license”

https://choosealicense.com
License 的部分可能請 jothon 幫忙討論一下
目前這個在newspeakhouse 定期聚會的團體可能因為成員各自有自己以前待過的團體的經驗，對於 open source, open license 會有從原團體運作模式遷移過來印象
比如說擔心 是不是說一定要 open source 就會太 technical 等等的
這點我想在 g0v 也是有鼓勵藝術、設計背景的參與者使用 Creative Commons
當然也要看這團體成員的興趣與意願在哪
如果最終目標放在有很多人參加活動、每週有講者，那麼一般的 meetup 模式就很夠用了
有許多 inclusive code of conduct 或許值得參考？
My personal position is that open culture and open collaboration are the most paramount values to hacknights, which represent an effort to "reimagine a new form of civic participation." (This is how I have understood my past work and perhaps misinterpreted the work of g0v.tw) In that sense, "open source" for us in Toronto was simply a means to that end, a specific [techo-legal] implementation of opennness.
My belief is that ppl doing civic work who are too fearful to work open source should still be very welcome to speak, participate, seek support, and be given a platform to share. so long as they communicate openly about what they are, and aspire for openness in ways that make sense in their context. In practice, the rare speakers (and even rarer breakout groups) that are not fully open source, they extend themselves in their interactions with us, and grow more eager about the possibilities of openness through that process.
For example, an upcoming London speaker started an ethical tech worker co-op that does bike food delivery. They don't do open source yet, though it is a topic of discussion internally. But when they do open their software, they are using software under a co-operative software license, which is not open source. Their license would only allow other co-operative to run the platform. And even if they don't choose to open their software, I would still want to participate in a community that gives platform to such efforts, and doesn't prioritize open source technologists' work above other worthy efforts that those technologists can both learn from and offer support to :)
https://twitter.com/wings_coop
Another example is marginalized indie game developers. In Toronto there is a respected community that is very open in leadership, and helps ppl from marginalized backgrounds break into gaming. They do not push open source. As an admirer, I would not expect them to. They run programs to help marginalized creators bootstrap game studios. They are ppl shaping stories that are not often told, and we were proud to host them, and to have shared members and shared values. They are not, nor would I expect them to be particularly valuing open source game creation, amongst a group that is already disadvantaged. but they are open in other ways, and share practices and learnings inside and outside their community. Coercing open source to be the deepest value (rather than openness) feels like it telegraphs that this type of labour and collaboration would not be very high priority in a g0v community.
https://twitter.com/emilyamacrae/status/1151277821316292608
For our upcoming organizing meeting, I plan to compile a list of past speakers in Toronto (there have been several hundred) who would seem to be de-priorotized by a manifesto that places open source above simple openness and other values. I worry that over-emphasizing open source going forward will result in speaker bookings and invitations that have a harder time busting silos between sectors. I feel it's important to be welcome of many types of speakers and not have that be second guessed by other members due to a sense of open source being the highest value. Booking weekly speakers is hard already, and we have learned in toronto to keep the movement "big tent" with as few constraints as possible outside "civics" (e.g., no specific monthly themes). I hear this conversation, and wonder if it means future speaker booker's will feel unwelcome to invite the sorts of amazing speakers who I understand to have energized the efforts in Toronto and made the culture and pace possible.
@sylin presented great options, but I can think of a few more:

1. Not call ourselves g0v anymore (civictech.london was suggested by a few co-organisers not active in this convo)
2. Continue using the g0v brand and start aligning with the g0v.tw manifesto asap
3. Fork the g0v.tw manifesto with a minimal change to suit preferences of active participants with g0v.london (and check if friendly forks like this are permitted by... upstream?)
4. Keep the g0v brand and manifesto, and allow ppl who don't identify as g0v nobodies to continue contributing to the effort (language of "we are all g0v" etc may need some tweaking, as well as setting norms on whether it's permitted to discuss this new nuance openly)
5. Keep the g0v brand and manifesto and ask ppl who disagree to step back from participating in co-organising
Wait I don’t see anyone coercing anything here…
I just meant the sense of "open source must be a core value in all g0v nodes, or the brand shouldn't be used"
I guess that term did stick out to me :p
Yeah, sorry, I was probably unfairly provocative :( I'll find another word :pray:🏻
I get that provocation though :p
It is in situations like this we are forced to reevaluate :)
Reevaluating is appreciated, even if it doesn't mean change! It's ok if things stay the same. I was worried I'd feel like I had to go if I disagreed, but I think I found a way to stay 🤞🏻, so I'm relieved 😅
我覺得開源或開放並沒有那麼完全程式導向，然後各地的社群並不一定需要使用「g0v」這個詞彙。鼓勵分享跟鼓勵貢獻都算是開放的文化（作為一個不會寫程式人對開源的理解
@patcon I think this statement is important to me in helping you understand what I an the other members of g0v are advocating for when we say open source: https://g0v-tw.slack.com/archives/C0385B90D/p1678198726006939?thread_ts=1677338358.382139&cid=C0385B90D

Open source is not just a technical thing, it is a philosophy that can cover many non-technical ways on practicing openness as a value. For example, I have seen many non-technical communities practice open source / openness using Google Docs to allow for public and collaborative open documents, even though the tool itself is not an open source tool. I disagree with people who say that all tools we use must be open source, I think this may be where your core disagreement with the phrase open source comes from, as you want to allow us to invite communities to that practice openness in other ways even if their tool is not open source.

However, I also think that licensing and open source is very important when the community itself it collaborating to make a new tool, or supporting a project. I don't think it would be appropriate, for example, to have a speaker from GoogleDocs come to a g0v meetup trying to promote or sell their closed source tool. Though it might be okay for someone from GoogleDocs to come and demo how you can use the tool to host a collaborative and open discussion as long as they aren't asking the community to contribute labor towards their private commercial enterprise.

I consider licensing another way of practicing the value of openness / open source, and I think it's an important conversation to have in every meeting. I do not consider it a technical conversation -- licenses apply to all forms of intellectual property, including creative content (i.e. Creative Commons licenses), and I think they are a critical mechanism for agreeing on the shared governance of collective labor contributed at events. Ignoring or avoiding these questions early in a project makes it very easy for those with more privilege or skills to take advantage of the contributions of others for personal gain. I don't consider having conversations about licenses a technical discussion, it's a legal and governance discussion, and it's a discussion about how the group wants their labor to be used by others.
Based on the conversations I have had with @patcon and @aelcenganda, I think there is agreement between everyone on the values here, I think it may just be disagreement over specific terms or words and how they are used.
Open source is an ill defined adjacent philosophical concept to g0v's openness manifesto. It's an ill defined term. The values behind MIT and Gpl3 for example are imo quite different, but both are called "open source." One allows a game developer's hard work to be exploited for free, the other, not so much.

Openness as a value can't possibly mean "pure open source" without contradicting openness of accessibility to work on a project, because requiring a full hardware stack of open source software, starting at coreboat and moving up, means only a small portion of people will be able to work on projects (or even connect to the wifi at a hackathon!) because most machines run non free firmware, or the operating system includes nonfree drivers (or just is non free).

The painful part of openness is growing pains as openness to non taiwanese participants and cultural norms has the predictable and desired result of bringing in non taiwanese participants! With the good comes a little bad, but in my opinion it's worth it. Maybe the little bad will turn out to be not so bad in the end. I've learned "tolerance without adaptation" is a good strategy for me when I move to a new country. For example, for a couple years I tolerated and observed some Taiwan labor practices, without trying to modify my own values to adopt them. In that case I decided not to adapt at all and that's why I started a co-op. But I made sure to tolerate for just a moment, because it let me have insight I wouldn't have otherwise. For example, I think make up holidays are really stupid, but I listened long enough to finally hear from a friend that he likes them because it means get gets two days in a row off some other time (never mind that you can have both...).

So basically even though conversations like this can be difficult, or cause strong emotions, that's a feature, not something to avoid. If we want to grow we have to experience some pain occasionally, as far as I know anyway.
7-8 co-organisers shared their understandings and visions on open source and g0v community. Power dynamics was addressed. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to come to a clear conclusion on the community's name and governance structure, but committed to slow down and resolve that in the following month. (from my understanding)

The decision right now is to suspend the events before further discussion on April 20th. The next scheduled g0v.london civic hacknight will be on April 25th. The scheduled speaker is going to speak on Strike Map, if I understand correctly.
Your hard work is admirable. Something I've learned personally and through conversations with and observations of activists is that committees is where change goes to die. If you feel you're following the g0v principles (and I happen to agree you are), I think you should just use the name and carry on. If someone wants to disagree strongly enough to take action about it, they can put in the effort to do that fight. No need to do the work for them.
@caleb I am afraid that my understanding of g0v principles is a constant community discussion and governance. It wouldn't be g0v if it is only one person's decision.
The g0v.london co-organiser meeting notes. The audio has not yet been transcribed, so each co-organiser's words are not accurately documented at this moment. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UDTt4MBYhHf9JbV56gOIrhQHV9vXcyvAuPhCqJSz7L4/edit#
ael 23:19:18
昨天 g0v.london 開了第一次 co-organizer meeting 。其中有一個想跟大家分享的是，有人擔心歐美人用了 g0v 的名字開新社群會有文化挪用（culture appropriation)的問題，就是白人亂代言不尊重台灣文化。我和 @sylin 都覺得還好，我則是說，我一直覺得 g0v 該是世界性的，不限於台灣，我認為用了 g0v 的名字，但是不開放參與，open-washing ，才是真的剝削代言這個文化。

@sylin 則提出在討論 g0v.london 的價值時，在場的人有提到了openness and open source，大家還有沒有其他想到可以 add to the list

~針對開放性和開源，書漾則是問說，重點只是開放/開源嗎？（我粗糙摘錄的版本，@sylin原話已補在上方）~

不知道大家怎麼想呢？

會議記錄：
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1csmYAXTIr-xNZAs6qNNzx3cVlqe0WjXEpPkZEAkSkuk/edit
culture appropriation 跟 open by default 是兩個分開的討論吧
分開但是時間上連在一起。我加上「針對開放性和開源」，你問是不是只有開源或是開放才是最重要的。希望沒有曲解你的意思>< 我的理解是除了開放之外，也要注重其他價值，以及不能死硬開放
我提出的部分應該是：
在討論 g0v.london 的價值時，在場的人有提到了openness and open source，大家還有沒有其他想到可以 add to the list

並沒有要爭論哪項比較重要
@sylin 同意，就是還有哪些價值
好喔 謝啦！
我覺得得 認同宣言內容 即可～ 涵蓋 開源、沒有人精神、多中心
g0v Manifesto
https://g0v.tw/intl/zh-TW/manifesto/
揪松團有開始討論「如何支援地區小松/海外揪松」，目前先初步列舉事項，也歡迎提供意見 !

請見以下 揪松團的 trello 工作卡片
https://trello.com/c/n2I0amoa
我會有疑慮的是成果掠奪、還有代表性的問題。
另外，g0v.london 和 g0v network 關係是?
g0v.london 是我和 @patcon 在倫敦，根據 Civic Tech Toronto 的 Hacknight 形式加上 g0v 精神，所開始的社群活動。g0v.london 這個 domain 目前是 @patcon 買的，在他名下

g0v.network 是當時包括 @patcon 在內，幾位北美的朋友創立的。我們因為方便，所以目前影片是先上傳到 g0v.network 的 YouTube channel.

@patcon what would you describe the relations of g0v.London and g0v.network?

我覺得 g0vhk.io 或甚至後來義大利也都有。非台灣人用是 OK 甚至被鼓勵的，但應該就是秉持社群一直以來的精神，自己沒參加的事情，不要說是「我們」做過什麼什麼
> we must also pay attention to other values, and we cannot be rigidly open
>
I recall the proposition (by Ian) that openness for one group might be to avoid open source. E.g., open availability to one group might require gdocs. I agree with this. In my home community of Civic Tech Toronto, we just barely talk about open source and essentially never about open licenses.
We instead highly encourage open culture and open project work, and it just happens that everyone uses defacto open source and open license. We don't take it ourselves in our onboarding to teach it though -- ppl seem to just figure it out fine
It's just pretty minimal in our onboarding, that's all
The thought that Ian and I shared (as I recall) was that emphasizing open source and especially types of license early might mean non-technical community contributors have more reason to think "oh, this place is for tech ppl" and then we have to work harder to convince them otherwise
Re: g0v.london and g0v.network

Both domains are managed at this git repo, using a designated cloudflare account that can pretty easily be collectivized. https://link.g0v.network/domains

g0v.network was just something we (me, Liz, CS, Darshana, 5-ish more) felt appropriate when trying to organize non-nationally in 2017 between UK, USA, Canada. We created a GitHub org for tracking issues and a YouTube account for sharing videos. A few of us have admin, but I'm the only one who seems to actively use it :man-shrugging:🏻
Basically just using it for some g0v.london stuff (like repos and videos) bc it seemed silly to create another GitHub org when there was already another unused one? Maybe that's wrong though
I think it’s wrong to characterize using google docs as “not open source”
I think g0v is built on open source
Using the name g0v to me implies value alignment with g0v. The values of g0v are expressed in the g0v Manifesto and open source is clearly part of the Manifesto.
Openness (abstraction) can be expressed in many ways (instance) and in the instance of g0v, it’s open source, or at least based on open source mechanisms (licenses, ways of collaboration…)
To me open source licenses are essential to collaboration in that it avoids (or at least reduces) exploitation - in that that it encourages sharing while gives credit where credit is due. Openness without it is less ideal imo.
To me I worry about the use of the name g0v outside of Taiwan without fully taking on the values of g0v (Manifesto). It’s problematic to me, cultural appropriation or not.
Saying all of this is not me stopping any new initiative but me joining this on-going conversation :p
Re: "essential to collaboration". We don't emphasize it in our 101 intros in Toronto, just working openly. And I feel like open collaboration works fine there, and my sense is that Toronto culture has converged pretty close to what's developed in Taiwan. Essentially every last project ends up being open source. I just don't like to be told I need to emphasize it early, when my experience is that it's not essential to do so <3
I feel resistant to being told (in a personal sense) that I must talk about open source and licenses when introducing our community to new ppl when I host our weekly 101 session. I support others to harp on it as much as they please when they run the session. But my personal sense is that it's unnecessarily tech-centric for my tastes. I'd rather focus on open leadership, and give ppl less reason to think they need to be rooted in technology culture to belong.
I am totally onboard with open leadership and space and more. I think it’s could be misguiding to characterize open source licensing as “tech-centric” though when looking at CC’s adoption in both g0v and the wider creative community.
I am also totally onboard of people running their communities however they see fit. I am only asserting my belief that (the name) g0v and open source (licensing) are tightly connected :)
I also want to share my personal experience as a newbie to g0v in 2014. g0vers at the time reminded me that I need to set a (open) license for my project because that would influence people’s willingness to contribute. That was a very important moment for me.
@patcon I don’t think @ian869 ‘a proposition is that we should “avoid open source” in order to be open. His proposition was, in my understanding, not to exclude not-open-source tools for communication, for instance, it is okay to use Google Doc.

My position is that g0v contributors’ contribution should be clearly stated to be in open source licenses from the very beginning as it is the foundation of open collaboration preventing exploitation. Otherwise, how do people trust strangers to work together? It is the clear understanding that how the collective work would be used that build the trust infrastructure.

I don’t think introducing the idea of open source would be too hard to onboard non-tech contributors. I have done that with many non-tech communities and organisations.

I blame myself that I didn’t make my point firmly and haven’t demonstrated and convinced you that introducing open source is not creating another barrier.

I also suggest we should share the next g0v.london co-organiser meeting time and link to g0v community as the topic here is the roots of what consists of g0v and how a community can use the name of g0v to host events.
I am glad to share with the community that #london-hacknight now is run by a group of co-organisers more than just @patcon and me. @patcon, I think that decentralisation is what we both wanted when we initiated g0v.London civic hacknight.

Therefore, I am going to copy more co-organisers here to understand the contexts and join the discussion

@zf @ruth.wetters @ian869 @james Cattell
我是覺得要用 g0v 這幾個字就好好的跟著 g0v manifesto 做啦，並且跟 jothon 保持聯絡
不然就換別的名字，想要叫 newspeakhouse, civictech.london 還是什麼都好
這件事情現在還是一個不是很裡想的狀態，所以希望訂一個 deadline (比如說4/30) 大家把規則定義清楚，要叫什麼名字，裡面適合怎麼樣的專案等等

這邊也貼上我在WA裏面寫的訊息：

For me, it’s very clear that g0v lives in open source.

So, that means even before this community use the name “g0v”, we should have adopted the spirit of living in open source already.

I am pretty sure it’s not alright to use the name g0v while not align with g0v manifesto…. 🤔 I can understand that this is in a beginning phase… but it’s been four months already!

So here is my opinion -
I think we have two ways out:

1. not call ourselves g0v anymore
2. continue using the name g0v, and start align with the manifesto today

https://g0v.tw/intl/zh-TW/manifesto/en/
``````
“live open source” in g0v refers to:

Project outcomes (including but not limited to text, images, code, data, analysis, and processes) are open-source, allowing more people to use, improve, comment, and maximize their usage.

So all this group needs to commit is only that all the projects in g0v london follows this spirit, and choose a license to take part.

any license from here, except the lower right corner saying “i don’t want to choose a license”

https://choosealicense.com
License 的部分可能請 jothon 幫忙討論一下
目前這個在newspeakhouse 定期聚會的團體可能因為成員各自有自己以前待過的團體的經驗，對於 open source, open license 會有從原團體運作模式遷移過來印象
比如說擔心 是不是說一定要 open source 就會太 technical 等等的
這點我想在 g0v 也是有鼓勵藝術、設計背景的參與者使用 Creative Commons
當然也要看這團體成員的興趣與意願在哪
如果最終目標放在有很多人參加活動、每週有講者，那麼一般的 meetup 模式就很夠用了
有許多 inclusive code of conduct 或許值得參考？
My personal position is that open culture and open collaboration are the most paramount values to hacknights, which represent an effort to "reimagine a new form of civic participation." (This is how I have understood my past work and perhaps misinterpreted the work of g0v.tw) In that sense, "open source" for us in Toronto was simply a means to that end, a specific [techo-legal] implementation of opennness.
My belief is that ppl doing civic work who are too fearful to work open source should still be very welcome to speak, participate, seek support, and be given a platform to share. so long as they communicate openly about what they are, and aspire for openness in ways that make sense in their context. In practice, the rare speakers (and even rarer breakout groups) that are not fully open source, they extend themselves in their interactions with us, and grow more eager about the possibilities of openness through that process.
For example, an upcoming London speaker started an ethical tech worker co-op that does bike food delivery. They don't do open source yet, though it is a topic of discussion internally. But when they do open their software, they are using software under a co-operative software license, which is not open source. Their license would only allow other co-operative to run the platform. And even if they don't choose to open their software, I would still want to participate in a community that gives platform to such efforts, and doesn't prioritize open source technologists' work above other worthy efforts that those technologists can both learn from and offer support to :)
https://twitter.com/wings_coop
Another example is marginalized indie game developers. In Toronto there is a respected community that is very open in leadership, and helps ppl from marginalized backgrounds break into gaming. They do not push open source. As an admirer, I would not expect them to. They run programs to help marginalized creators bootstrap game studios. They are ppl shaping stories that are not often told, and we were proud to host them, and to have shared members and shared values. They are not, nor would I expect them to be particularly valuing open source game creation, amongst a group that is already disadvantaged. but they are open in other ways, and share practices and learnings inside and outside their community. Coercing open source to be the deepest value (rather than openness) feels like it telegraphs that this type of labour and collaboration would not be very high priority in a g0v community.
https://twitter.com/emilyamacrae/status/1151277821316292608
For our upcoming organizing meeting, I plan to compile a list of past speakers in Toronto (there have been several hundred) who would seem to be de-priorotized by a manifesto that places open source above simple openness and other values. I worry that over-emphasizing open source going forward will result in speaker bookings and invitations that have a harder time busting silos between sectors. I feel it's important to be welcome of many types of speakers and not have that be second guessed by other members due to a sense of open source being the highest value. Booking weekly speakers is hard already, and we have learned in toronto to keep the movement "big tent" with as few constraints as possible outside "civics" (e.g., no specific monthly themes). I hear this conversation, and wonder if it means future speaker booker's will feel unwelcome to invite the sorts of amazing speakers who I understand to have energized the efforts in Toronto and made the culture and pace possible.
@sylin presented great options, but I can think of a few more:

1. Not call ourselves g0v anymore (civictech.london was suggested by a few co-organisers not active in this convo)
2. Continue using the g0v brand and start aligning with the g0v.tw manifesto asap
3. Fork the g0v.tw manifesto with a minimal change to suit preferences of active participants with g0v.london (and check if friendly forks like this are permitted by... upstream?)
4. Keep the g0v brand and manifesto, and allow ppl who don't identify as g0v nobodies to continue contributing to the effort (language of "we are all g0v" etc may need some tweaking, as well as setting norms on whether it's permitted to discuss this new nuance openly)
5. Keep the g0v brand and manifesto and ask ppl who disagree to step back from participating in co-organising
Wait I don’t see anyone coercing anything here…
I just meant the sense of "open source must be a core value in all g0v nodes, or the brand shouldn't be used"
I guess that term did stick out to me :p
Yeah, sorry, I was probably unfairly provocative :( I'll find another word :pray:🏻
I get that provocation though :p
It is in situations like this we are forced to reevaluate :)
Reevaluating is appreciated, even if it doesn't mean change! It's ok if things stay the same. I was worried I'd feel like I had to go if I disagreed, but I think I found a way to stay 🤞🏻, so I'm relieved 😅
我覺得開源或開放並沒有那麼完全程式導向，然後各地的社群並不一定需要使用「g0v」這個詞彙。鼓勵分享跟鼓勵貢獻都算是開放的文化（作為一個不會寫程式人對開源的理解
@patcon I think this statement is important to me in helping you understand what I an the other members of g0v are advocating for when we say open source: https://g0v-tw.slack.com/archives/C0385B90D/p1678198726006939?thread_ts=1677338358.382139&cid=C0385B90D

Open source is not just a technical thing, it is a philosophy that can cover many non-technical ways on practicing openness as a value. For example, I have seen many non-technical communities practice open source / openness using Google Docs to allow for public and collaborative open documents, even though the tool itself is not an open source tool. I disagree with people who say that all tools we use must be open source, I think this may be where your core disagreement with the phrase open source comes from, as you want to allow us to invite communities to that practice openness in other ways even if their tool is not open source.

However, I also think that licensing and open source is very important when the community itself it collaborating to make a new tool, or supporting a project. I don't think it would be appropriate, for example, to have a speaker from GoogleDocs come to a g0v meetup trying to promote or sell their closed source tool. Though it might be okay for someone from GoogleDocs to come and demo how you can use the tool to host a collaborative and open discussion as long as they aren't asking the community to contribute labor towards their private commercial enterprise.

I consider licensing another way of practicing the value of openness / open source, and I think it's an important conversation to have in every meeting. I do not consider it a technical conversation -- licenses apply to all forms of intellectual property, including creative content (i.e. Creative Commons licenses), and I think they are a critical mechanism for agreeing on the shared governance of collective labor contributed at events. Ignoring or avoiding these questions early in a project makes it very easy for those with more privilege or skills to take advantage of the contributions of others for personal gain. I don't consider having conversations about licenses a technical discussion, it's a legal and governance discussion, and it's a discussion about how the group wants their labor to be used by others.
Based on the conversations I have had with @patcon and @aelcenganda, I think there is agreement between everyone on the values here, I think it may just be disagreement over specific terms or words and how they are used.
Open source is an ill defined adjacent philosophical concept to g0v's openness manifesto. It's an ill defined term. The values behind MIT and Gpl3 for example are imo quite different, but both are called "open source." One allows a game developer's hard work to be exploited for free, the other, not so much.

Openness as a value can't possibly mean "pure open source" without contradicting openness of accessibility to work on a project, because requiring a full hardware stack of open source software, starting at coreboat and moving up, means only a small portion of people will be able to work on projects (or even connect to the wifi at a hackathon!) because most machines run non free firmware, or the operating system includes nonfree drivers (or just is non free).

The painful part of openness is growing pains as openness to non taiwanese participants and cultural norms has the predictable and desired result of bringing in non taiwanese participants! With the good comes a little bad, but in my opinion it's worth it. Maybe the little bad will turn out to be not so bad in the end. I've learned "tolerance without adaptation" is a good strategy for me when I move to a new country. For example, for a couple years I tolerated and observed some Taiwan labor practices, without trying to modify my own values to adopt them. In that case I decided not to adapt at all and that's why I started a co-op. But I made sure to tolerate for just a moment, because it let me have insight I wouldn't have otherwise. For example, I think make up holidays are really stupid, but I listened long enough to finally hear from a friend that he likes them because it means get gets two days in a row off some other time (never mind that you can have both...).

So basically even though conversations like this can be difficult, or cause strong emotions, that's a feature, not something to avoid. If we want to grow we have to experience some pain occasionally, as far as I know anyway.
7-8 co-organisers shared their understandings and visions on open source and g0v community. Power dynamics was addressed. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to come to a clear conclusion on the community's name and governance structure, but committed to slow down and resolve that in the following month. (from my understanding)

The decision right now is to suspend the events before further discussion on April 20th. The next scheduled g0v.london civic hacknight will be on April 25th. The scheduled speaker is going to speak on Strike Map, if I understand correctly.
Your hard work is admirable. Something I've learned personally and through conversations with and observations of activists is that committees is where change goes to die. If you feel you're following the g0v principles (and I happen to agree you are), I think you should just use the name and carry on. If someone wants to disagree strongly enough to take action about it, they can put in the effort to do that fight. No need to do the work for them.
@caleb I am afraid that my understanding of g0v principles is a constant community discussion and governance. It wouldn't be g0v if it is only one person's decision.
The g0v.london co-organiser meeting notes. The audio has not yet been transcribed, so each co-organiser's words are not accurately documented at this moment. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UDTt4MBYhHf9JbV56gOIrhQHV9vXcyvAuPhCqJSz7L4/edit#
🌐 2 1

2023-02-26

Stamford 00:17:41
@stamford.hwang has joined the channel
chewei 17:47:36
揪松團有開始討論「如何支援地區小松/海外揪松」，目前先初步列舉事項，也歡迎提供意見 !

請見以下 揪松團的 trello 工作卡片
https://trello.com/c/n2I0amoa