Comments on the manifesto from FSCONS 2011

From FSCONS wiki
Revision as of 21:04, 29 March 2015 by Grégoire (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Photo of comments to the manifesto - License: CC-BY-SA 2.0"
The Manifesto, on the wall, with comments - License: CC-BY-SA 2.0
"Photo of comments to the manifesto - License: CC-BY-SA 2.0"
Closer look at some comments - License: CC-BY-SA 2.0

Here are the comments collected from the sticky notes during FSCONS 2011, where we asked the participants to comment on the manifesto interactively using pen and paper and huge print-outs of the manifesto on the walls.

Some comments have been dealt with for the 2012 version, whereas those requiring more structural changes are left for the 2013 version.

(Bold text annotes that the item has been dealt with, Italics that it is under review.)


All comments:

  1. Awesome to see a manifesto for FSCONS this year! Thanks
  2. Cross-pollination" Fancy expression.
  3. I don't mind the "fancy" but "pollination" is sufficient.
  4. It exists to provide ... from the P.O.V of freedom. Action: Have a look at introdcution and Background with this in mind.
  5. "Virtual space" (for meeting each other and discussions): I don't think there is much of that provided by FSCONS now, but actually I like the idea.
  6. When "FSCONS is founded as a Free Software conference "Scandinavia"?
  7. Crowd sourcing the manifesto is a brilliant idea!
  8. "We strive to lower the barriers for...": good! indeed!
  9. "We are non-discriminatory in terms of gender, age, sexual orientation...": Incompatible with workshop for one gender only.
  10. "We respect each other...": It also help being including by showing people that have been discriminated earlier, and might be so at FSCONS also, that it is not tolerated.
  11. "We respect each other...": YES! Although discrimination might be illegal it is really great to be explicit about it! It will help educate people.
  12. "We respect each other...": I vote against including this discrimination if any kind is inherently bad, and already prohibited by the law everywhere appropriate (to say the least). Let's not be pointlessly politically correct.
  13. "The content should be a challenge for the participants, and encourage new thinking": Did you mean something along the lines of "challenging the participants" or "challenging participant's views"?
  14. "We strive to be open and transparent in how we work, and what we do": 'Strive to' is vague.. what are the possible limits to transparency? Action: This should perhaps have a counterpart under "Goals/Approaches"?
  15. "We respect each other, and we are non-discriminatory and accessible": Why limit the non-discriminatory policy to only these foci? What about political opinions?
    1. "We respect each other, and we are non-discriminatory and accessible": My political opinions are to discriminate people based on gender,age,sexual orientation,ethnic background,..... Now what?
  16. "participants at each activity": visitors to FSCONS every year? visitors at lectures? what?
  17. "Low barriers": the cost of entrance! which barriers is it? Action: Low barriers includes for instance cost of entrance, but is a very broad thing. Should have a coutnerpart (or counterparts) under approaches clarifying the intent?
  18. "Financially self-supporting": Consistent web usage.
  19. You may want to clarify how these goals relate to the overall purpose of the conference. The goals are ok but it would be good to put them in an explicit context. Action: Check all goals against the Foundations; are the at all instances former firmly anchored in the latter? If not, rephrase/remove goal, or expand Foundations!
  20. "Goal,Being accessible...": make sure not to alienate advanced participants by keeping it too basic. Action: clarify intent.
  21. "Goal,Being accessible...": is it about knowledge? Action: Yes, what do we mean?
  22. "Goal,Being accessible...": accessible for who? what are the criterion? Action: This obviously needs clarification!
  23. "FSCONS should spark interesting discussions and co-operations ": sloppy definitions aren't what make things interesting, they are just sloppy. Action: Discussed and dealt with.
  24. "FSCONS should spark interesting discussions and co-operations ": we don't know that is what make it interesting. Action: See above!
  25. "Approaches to accomplish the goals": since it's a continuous process and not a single one-off activity, "accomplishing" would probably sound better.
  26. "Receiving help and funding through an active sponsorship of FSCONS ...": Some native English speaker could review this paragraph for grammar consistency and improve the flow and cohesion. Action: Rewrote this shorter and more to the point...
  27. Rephrase.. FSCONS sponsoring... or sponsoring FSCONS. who is sponsoring who?
  28. "Investigating what good quantitative approaches could be established in order to meet the goal of having a reasonable and fair gender distribution among the participants": what exactly is "quantitative approach" ?
  29. "Establishing a system of local ambassadors of FSCONS in order to attract new participants (including speakers, staff and volunteers) " how do we do this?
  30. "Metrics for the goals": Arranging tracks on specific themes is not a way to measure, it's an approach. This paragraph is quite confusing. Action: The relevant paragraph mixes goals and metrics, and is confusing. Removed the confusing part.
  31. "A feedback mechanism for keeping track of that projects, and what discussions continue after FSCONS.": Isn't it already implemented by mailing people after the conference?
  32. " Metrics for the goals": Measurable goals can lead to optimization towards compliance of measurement rather than solution of problem- rather promote deliberative culture. Action: This is a fair point. Add something to the effect of goals being secondary to the spirit of the event or some such to the goal header-text.
  33. "A constant review of what percentage are returning visitors.": In the long run, am I welcome back if 20% of all attendees each year should be first-time? Implies infinite growth? Action: Yes, this is strange... See 35!
  34. "A constant review of what percentage are returning visitors.": Anyone has anything here? See 35!
  35. "A constant review of what percentage are returning visitors.": You are welcome as long as you are with the 80%. Action: Changed to a more loose but honest formulation.
  36. "A constant review of what percentage are returning visitors.": So registration of visitors, some people with paranoia won't like that. Action: No change in manifesto. A tick-box has been added to participant registration asking if this is the participant's first time.
  37. "Goal,financial follow-up..": donate all the money!


Unttended comments:

  1. "Low barriers": the cost of entrance! which barriers is it? Action: Low barriers includes for instance cost of entrance, but is a very broad thing. Should have a coutnerpart (or counterparts) under approaches clarifying the intent?
  2. You may want to clarify how these goals relate to the overall purpose of the conference. The goals are ok but it would be good to put them in an explicit context. Action: Check all goals against the Foundations; are the at all instances former firmly anchored in the latter? If not, rephrase/remove goal, or expand Foundations!
  3. "Goal,Being accessible...": make sure not to alienate advanced participants by keeping it too basic. Action: clarify intent.
  4. "Goal,Being accessible...": is it about knowledge? Action: Yes, what do we mean?
  5. "Goal,Being accessible...": accessible for who? what are the criterion? Action: This obviously needs clarification!
  6. " Metrics for the goals": Measurable goals can lead to optimization towards compliance of measurement rather than solution of problem- rather promote deliberative culture. Action: This is a fair point. Add something to the effect of goals being secondary to the spirit of the event or some such to the goal header-text.