Re: to recycle old and inactive CG (Community I/O) or to propose new one (Collaborative Economy)?

Hi elf,

I like everything you say. Though it's still pretty broad. But that's OK. And using recognisable terminology is good too. I'm excited!

And in lieu of Ian's comments I'd say just start a new group and post a message in the old group to get them to join the new group. Count me in!

Cheers Daniel

On 20 Aug 2015, at 17:17, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On 08/20/2015 04:17 PM, Daniel Harris wrote:
>>> Since than, many new open source project emerged working in field of
>>> Collaborative Economy and I would like to offer a venue to various
>>> people who work on them to give more focus to make them gradually more
>>> interoperable.
>>> 
>>> I consider proposing Collaborative Economy Community Group, following
>>> naming used on social media. (for example on twitter
>>> https://twitter.com/hashtag/CollaborativeEconomy) and using #collecon
>>> IRC channel and collecon-public@w3.org mailing list.
>> 
>> I must admit I prefer "Collaboration IO" to "Collaborative Economy". Use #collabio?
>> 
>> But, I guess, if you are trying to appeal to those who are conversant with "Collaborative Economy" (a la OuiShare, Shareable...) then perhaps the more well used/recognised words are more appropriate and better to get engagement and adoption.
> 
> I find myself making big mistake in setting way to broad context in
> Community I/O, Collaboration I/O still seems super generic and in many
> ways I/O can create more confusion than clarification.
> 
> I want to emphasize the Economy part, and work around established terms
> like Sharing Economy, Collaborative Consumption and in last years more
> balanced Collaborative Economy. I would even include in description
> couple of more specific tags: #carpooling #ridesharing #mealsharing
> #foodcoops #coworking #hospitality #coliving #volunteering #swapping
> #skillsharing #coproduction #commons etc.
> 
> I would also like to make it clear that it doesn't exclude commerce, but
> at the same time puts clearly in scope economic interactions based on
> sharing, collaboration, prosumption, volunteering etc.
> 
> Also staying agnostic towards various possible forms of accounting,
> those already existing: barter, monatary purchase, reputation based
> grant, donation/gift, merit/karma etc. as well as those now unknown but
> which will appear in the future.
> 
> Maybe starting with writing a clear charter draft, together with other
> interested people would make sense here? I would also refer to some
> particular candidate technologies, for example:
> 
> * http://goodrelations-vocabulary.org
> * http://schema.org/Offer, http://schema.org/Demand,
> http://schema.org/Service
> * http://microformats.org/wiki/h-listing
> * https://web-payments.org/specs/
> 
> I think this would allow better decision for a possible venue...
> 
> Cheers!
>

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 07:50:17 UTC