Forum categorisation
Thank you for your feedback on the categorisation @micheleminno. I’ll address your input and that of @Free here, and only post publicly when we reach further consensus (to avoid overly long discussion in the community).
General remarks
-
I like your idea to have the top level of the pyramid uncategorized, because it is the visionary goal we strive for in that focus area.
- Need to investigate if that is feasible. If it is, then for each top level we can define a separate vision (the sweet spot of that focus area).
- We can make the top of each pyramid a separate (special) subcategory, e.g. for Wellbeing have ‘happiness’ as subcategory. There are trends like ‘design for happiness’ on the internet.
-
I had taken Inclusion and Diversity as separate categories deliberately. They are usually thrown together, but they have separate meaning. “Diversity is about quantity. Inclusion is about quality” (see here). Placing them separately allows giving each category the attention they deserve.
- ‘Inclusion’ is in Society pyramid in access layer. It means digital access for everyone in this context.
- ‘Diversity’ is in the Wellbeing pyramid in harmony layer. It is related to acceptance of other cultures and races and sociability.
-
There are only 2 levels of categories on the forum, category and subcategory. So the pyramid layers can only be indicated by a color
- I propose sticking with my images that show the layers and their names, but modify the colors so that lower layers have a lighter shaded color which is used in the corresponding subcategories. This way you can see which layer the subcategory belongs to.
Categorisation
Society
I agree with your subdivision, with the exception that I would like to separate Inclusion and Diversity (see remark above).
Wellbeing
‘Body & Mind’ in itself is a good name, but there are many harms in both these words that need to be addressed. I propose having them separately and e.g. name them ‘physical health’ and ‘mental health’.
I really like ‘Ergonomics’, a good find, but at the same time unsure if this is already encompassed in the 2 health subcategories. Also the term usually applies to physical products (an ergonomical keyboard). I don’t think we have any posts currently that fit into this category. Drop this term?
Agree on the other terms.
Freedom
This is the hardest pyramid to define. I am not too happy on the way I defined the current categorization. At the same time, after Society and Wellbeing the Freedom pyramid exists on a higher plane towards human flourishing, so it is more important.
I suggest giving extra attention to defining this pyramid, but to do that at a later time. Leave it for now.
Alignment
Agree on the subcategories, but Sustainable Business could be part of discovery layer. Finding alternative business models and new ways to do business. Then afterwards it is Governance that leads to adoption of these findings.
Harms
I’d like to call the category just ‘Harms’. It has ‘Harms of Technology’ text appear in the image next to the category name.
We have 4 pyramids, and therefore I also defined 4 harms subcategories. The one you omitted is the one I called ‘Internet’, but it stands for the Alignment pyramid. Harms addressed here are ‘monopolisation’, ‘net neutrality’, ‘proprietary standards’, ‘walled gardens’, etc. Mayb the name to use should match the pyramid name: ‘Alignment’.
Focus
In the focus category we find the community ‘Programs’. Long-running initiatives that can encompass many activities, initiatives, campaigns and projects.
I agree with your subcategories. Education, Research, and Partners can be omitted until we actually start to actively address these areas. Then for each we’ll create a corresponding Program when we get there.
Central
I agree with the subcategories. The only addition I made is the ‘Feedback’ subcategory, to make community feedback a central concept. Getting good, continuous feedback on the community itself is very important.
Summary
This means that we will have a lot of subcategories. We still need to address @Free's feedback, who suggested a much flatter hierarchy. Need to have a good explanation why a further breakdown is needed.
It’s quite late now, I’ll update the wiki post tomorrow. Any feedback from you all is most welcome, @micheleminno, @healthyswimmer and @patm.