[Osmf-talk] public document writing process (was: microgrants)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 1/14/20 15:22, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> a) if and why i think the detailed edit history of a policy document
> draft of the OSMF should be recorded and

> b) if that is the case if and why i think this edit history should be
> available to the members.

> My answer is yes to both questions.

I had assumed as much. I found it important enough to discuss these
issues themselves, and not frame them as a simple tooling question on
the sidelines of microgrants.

I think that a balance needs to be struck, and your demands are going
too far in my opinion.

I can see how as a community member I would want to know in how far a
document produced by a working group or the board of directors has
basically been written by a Facebook employee with minor wording changes
from the others, or if it has been a true collective effort. Especially
with smaller and less active bodies, it is very easy for one "helpful"
person to write up "the official XYZ group statement on topic ABC". If
you then allow them to hide the fact that the whole document was written
by one person with only minimal discussion, they can essentially abuse
the body to multiply the weight of their personal opinion.

It is also certainly interesting to understand whether, in developing a
document, the authoring group has evaluated various approaches and then
decided on one, or if one influential person has perhaps set the
direction in the beginning and then no alternative approaches were even
looked at.

I understand all that.

But I have also participated in the collaborative writing of documents
in my past role as a board member, and my current DWG work. And from
that experience I can say two things with certainty:

(1) The actual edit history of a document as captured by whatever system
is used to type it out paints only half of the picture and can be very
misleading. I have for example been in telephone sessions where a shared
pad was open, and where often one person (the fastest typer or best
wordsmith) would write down the stuff suggested by the others - when in
the spirit of common search for compromise they would sometimes write
stuff they didn't even personally like very much. Sometimes people would
also express opinions by mail or other means and the group hammering out
the document would then incorporate that. Hence, capturing which person
typed the words when will not tell you who was the father or mother of a
particular thought or when.

(2) The process of coming up with ideas must have a degree of freedom
from judgment and monitoring. It can be valuable to start a creative
process with a "brainstorming" session where you're supposed to just
note down everything that comes to mind with as little reflection or
embarrassment as possible. Such a process would be utterly impossible if
anyone who writes down a word needs to fear being held to account for
that word by you or me on the mailing list eight weeks later. With all
our justified demands for transparency, there must also be spaces where
groups can bond as groups and be productive and not perform on stage for
an audience. I think that board work, or WG work, must have a private
side to be effective; as a group member engaged in a creative process, I
would not like to be watched all the time. Granted, monitoring all my
document changes is not as bad as monitoring all my keystrokes is not as
bad as filming me while I do the work but it all feels like some sort of
surveillance.

Summing up:

* The community has a legitimate interest in knowing something about the
creative process, especially which ideas were rejected and who were the
main contributors to something;

* automatic recordings of the process of document writing are often not
suitable for this;

* automatic recordings can also present an unwelcome intrusion into the
privacy of participants, a privacy and "safe space" that if granted can
increase productivity.

I think that a pragmatic compromise could be the publication of, with
every document or draft, a small "meta" information that explains who
participated to which degree in coming up with the document (perhaps
telling us who was the "lead", if any, who made "major contributions"
and simply not mentioning those who just fixed a comma, or something),
and also a small "change log" that would tersely point out the major
changes since the last draft, or perhaps on a first draft outline which
ideas had been tried and rejected, if any.

This is slightly more work on the part of those publishing the document,
but not a huge lot; and having a honest list of authors and
"influencers" would be a good step for transparency - you'd be able to
tell if a document was genuine teamwork or just one person forging
ahead. Not that this is always bad but it's nice if you know.

This kind of transparency is a transparency that has to be given, not a
transparency that is simply taken. I think therein lies the necessary
compromise.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"