--- Log opened Wed Dec 21 00:00:52 2011
16:46 -!- LP_ is now known as LP_afk
16:48 -!- LP_afk is now known as LP_
21:29 < sdboyer> Senpai: YAR
21:30 < Senpai> hey hey HAY!
21:32 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: i was having a number of thoughts about the main FGA UX process while in the shower today
21:32 < sdboyer> shower is an excellent thinking place
21:33 < Andrew_Mallis> do tell
21:33 < sdboyer> ok lemme grab some water rq, then i will
21:35 < sdboyer> nadavoid: http://projects.occupy.net/issues/121
21:35 < sdboyer> nadavoid: where's that ticket about geo again?
21:35 < nadavoid> sdboyer: great thanks!
21:35 < nadavoid> sdboyer: almost through writing it
21:37 < nadavoid> sdboyer: http://projects.occupy.net/issues/122
21:38 < sdboyer> ah ok, brilliant
21:41 < nadavoid> Andrew_Mallis: what's the d.o issue number for webform dropdowns, delivering to email addresses?
21:41 < nadavoid> Andrew_Mallis: the one that just had its 3rd birthday
21:44 < Andrew_Mallis> http://drupal.org/node/273806
21:45 < nadavoid> thank ya
21:50 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: and i got distracted. ok, lemme collect my thoughts from earlier...
21:51 < Andrew_Mallis> me too. was put onto my cameo here: http://www.nycga.net/how-to-help/
21:57 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: oh look, you and katie!
21:57 < sdboyer> GREEN SAYS MONEY
21:58 < sdboyer> GREEN SAYS GO
21:58 < sdboyer> ok so, my thoughts. i don't know where in a UX process we're *supposed* to be talking about personas & stories
21:58 < sdboyer> but it seems like we're going waaaay big picture initially
21:59 < Andrew_Mallis> We were always big picture. I'm keen to keep it real.
21:59 < Andrew_Mallis> Also want to actually broader the conversation so it's less FGA and more mapping the movement.
22:03 < Amgine> Aren't those related but different projects?
22:04 < Andrew_Mallis> yes
22:05 < Amgine> So, should the one (FGA) continue while the other (mapping the movement) begins? or does it block?
22:11 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: right ok, so to that end - i think that focusing in on some basic user stories as it pertains to what we'd like to see people able to do, in groups and individually, is the best way to clear out some of the high-level clouds
22:11 < sdboyer> i think without that, it'd be insurmountably large
22:12 < sdboyer> s/it'd be/it will remain/
22:13 < Andrew_Mallis> 10-4
22:22 < sdboyer> 10-4 is lovely, but what are your thoughts on that as a path forward? :P
22:23 < Andrew_Mallis> in a bit of a meeting
22:24 < sdboyer> ah ok, i'll wait
23:11 < Andrew_Mallis> sdboyer: um. my path forward right now-ish os to get the Directory running. Longer term path is harder. We are low in numbers on the UX side still.
23:12 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: i did send you those remote contacts, right?
23:12 < Andrew_Mallis> dang. clipper trough the cracks.
23:12 < sdboyer> ok i was thinking that directory was going to be happening somewhat on the side as the main body of work proceeded
23:12 < sdboyer> s/remote contacts/UX people who are probably across the pond/
23:13 < sdboyer> though certainly you have a limited number of hours, and paying attention to the directory stuff does curtail that :)
23:22 < scottrigby> sdboyer: nice to hear about the wired article
23:22 < sdboyer> scottrigby: yeah, i hope it turns out well
23:23 < sdboyer> he's really putting a lot of effort into getting the details right, it seems
23:23 < sdboyer> i'm responding to a *long* series of questions with detailed answers atm, heh
23:23 < scottrigby> that's good to hear
23:23 < Andrew_Mallis> be really great if we can get the directory up in time
23:23 < scottrigby> oh btw - quick q in reference to that FGA public skype chat
23:23 < scottrigby> Andrew_Mallis: yeah
23:26 < scottrigby> sdboyer: sry - so my question is, do we have a good description of the project as a whole? I mean… something with the what and why, a bit more than the details of how
23:26 < sdboyer> scottrigby: i'm thinking i need to just friggin buckle down and write it, b/c it may not manifest itself if i don't :)
23:26  * scottrigby guessing this is already in the works for the public-facing website
23:26 < scottrigby> hehe
23:27 < sdboyer> we're gonna be keeping the directory fairly contained i think - not super public-facing
23:27 < sdboyer> we have this annoying problem where we *know* we want to change away from the name FGA, since it's a misleading engineer's name
23:27 < scottrigby> i was thinking about the FGA Project site?
23:27 < sdboyer> right, and that we're not working on right away...despite the name of the redmine subproject
23:28 < scottrigby> yeah - but also is picking up it's own momentum…
23:28 < scottrigby> ah ok
23:28 < sdboyer> what's picking up its own momentum?
23:28 < scottrigby> i mean the fga name
23:28 < sdboyer> but we don't really want a project site until we've decided on a name, because then the name change is bigger and splashier
23:28 < sdboyer> ah yeah
23:28 < sdboyer> yeah which is why we need to have that annoying discussion sooner rather than later
23:28 < scottrigby> or at least it feels that way a bit. the more you refer to it, the more magnetic it becomes :)
23:28 < sdboyer> or just give up :)
23:28 < sdboyer> yuuuuuuup
23:29 < sdboyer> no you're for sure right
23:29 < scottrigby> well, there is an email thread… i think that's worth continuing
23:29 < sdboyer> imo, if we don't do the name change soon, our next/only opportunity will be to do it on initial launch
23:29 < sdboyer> and treat "FGA" like it was the codename during development
23:29 < scottrigby> maybe the public skype chat couuld help with that. we might even note that in the event description as one of the items on the agend
23:29 < scottrigby> a
23:29 < scottrigby> yeah
23:29 < sdboyer> i'd be cool with that
23:30  * sdboyer strokes his beard
23:30 < sdboyer> scottrigby: i need to put you to work in here somewhere :)
23:30 < scottrigby> yeah, so it may be a bit premature in terms of priorities to write a non-technical description - but even a working draft (very rough, more like a teaser) - would be perfect for our announcement. Once we pick a day of course
23:30 < Andrew_Mallis> has everyone seen this yet: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/Main_Page
23:30 < scottrigby> yeah - i'm mentally setting aside time ;)
23:34 < Andrew_Mallis> sdboyer: I am not convinced that we need to have the directory site outside the idea of a project site. I thought we had some momentum around fga.occupy.net/directory
23:35 < Andrew_Mallis> I sense you want to do directory.occupy.net instead
23:35 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: yep, i'm all over that w3c section. i expect that as we carry on, somewhere around february or march we'll start getting invites to meld some of our discussions with what's happening there
23:38 < sdboyer> Andrew_Mallis: my honest position is that i don't have strong feelings on it one way or the other. i'm just hot on the "path of least resistance" right now, and to me that seems like a directory.occupy.net which ultimately turns out to be a separate thing, and we can punt on the naming question
23:40 < scottrigby> so about a description of "Federated General Assembly (working title)" pre-renaming… would you be up for making a google doc or something? Or… should we use the wiki on redmine?
23:40 < Andrew_Mallis> I've started a forum thrread
23:40 < scottrigby> that could be discussed on the list too… as things come up. i bet other people there would have some input
23:41 < scottrigby> Andrew_Mallis: yeah - i mean a working non-technical public description, not so much the renaming part itself
23:42 < Andrew_Mallis> how about the wiki?
23:43 < scottrigby> totally. i'll pitch in – it would be nice to have a bit of a start on that though
23:44  * scottrigby looking for that initial riseup.net post sam made…
23:44 < Andrew_Mallis> I will start something and post here momentarily, plus open a ticket in redmine.
23:45 < scottrigby> I'm about to be afk for a bit… but yeah would def contribute and help shape something for the chat announcement as well as evolving public description
23:45 < scottrigby> rad
23:46 < scottrigby> Andrew_Mallis++
23:46 < scottrigby> oh btw, one more quick Q for NYC… could you use a few large-ish solar panels?
23:48 < scottrigby> basekamp has some and I'm either going to put them in storage or let the delaware occupy group use em. we were using them here pre-eviction in philly. now the OP tech team is in an office space with outlets and doesn't need them
23:48 < scottrigby> anyway let me know if so… i know there are people driving between philly & nyc pretty regulary
--- Log closed Thu Dec 22 00:00:07 2011