Home › Commons › Conversations-Forums › Archived conversations, 2005-2007 › Evolutionary Nexus Community › Community Facilitation and Roles ›

Forums open to whom?

Submitted by Ria Baeck on January 30, 2006 - 09:18.

George wrote:

"Visitors can read blogs and wikis but not the forums. The rationale for that is that a forum conversation is very much like an intimate meeting of a group of friends, in the context of which we can trust that our vulnerabilities will not be misused.

As soon as we open those conversations available to the search engines and the occasional surfers, nothing can prevent posts from re-appearing it outside the Nexus, in many unexpected and not always nice context.

We may decide to have publicly readable forums but then our members need to know which forums are public and which ones are private."

Nancy wrote:

"From what I can discern, you have to be logged in to see the forums. How do people feel about letting the forums be visible to browsers and just require login to post? Transparency?"

Ashley wrote:

"I am also confused by the fact that parts of this site are not public, that you have to be a member in order to read the information. I think that it would be valuable to make our forums public, transparent. I see value in regulating that one must be a member to post, but not in controlling who can read the conversations."

I take the position of 'radical trust' as it was named by somebody in the Salon. Of course it is possible that my words can be used outside the forums; I don't  mind. I rather like that meaningful conversations are open to more people than just the ones that happened to be on the Salon itself. What about the 80-90 that were on the waiting list? What about people coming to Moving the Edge in two months in Denmark? It would be VERY good that they can join conversations.  

I would like to install 'by default' that forums are visible for every visitor of the site; and that -if people want it 'closed' - we can do that.  Ria 

the Internet is an open book

Submitted by Bill Aal on February 6, 2006 - 09:12.

While I think there may be a bit of privacy in the "private forums" there is no  real security.

At riseup, we assume there is no such thing as absolute security, and we are security concious.  Any open system that has folks communicating from a wide variety of types of web browsers can have holes somewhere.

The only real security is open communication, ( open source  eh?).  Some of us learned that the hard way in the movements of the 60's.....  but that is an old story

I syill think having some places relatively private  will free up some conversation, knowing that its all relative.

security?

Submitted by Jennifer Atlee on February 5, 2006 - 23:44.
wonderful conversation. I too would like to have public-read forums & intimate member-private forums. I am wondering about the ability of private to be REALLY private/secure? I don't know enough about the many forms of web-privacy & ways to break them.  How secure are member-only forums in Drupal?

Kevin says: Lets also have

Submitted by Ashley Cooper on February 3, 2006 - 20:38.

Kevin says:

Lets also have some spaces where we can have intimate conversations, where we can take chances, and open ourselves, to depths that feel risky even with friends- but risks we are willing to take - because our hearts and souls take us there and becasue we know these people and because part of the shareing is an extending and deepening of the trust and the connection that can take us closer to the truth.. closer to our essence and into the Essence because there is a safe container within to open into what feels very risky.

OH... I LOVE this... my heart purrs and tumbles in the open space of intimate conversations where we push beyond those comfortable places, deepening into the radical trust and sharing vulnerably in service of  reuniting with Essence and Authenticity!! Woooo huuuuu!!

In thinking about a continuum, I find myself wanting something more defined than just a Members forum and Public forum. One part of me is concerned that members will just choose to write in the members forum, still keeping valuable insight hidden from the public (it's just easier to write here than there). Perhaps the member's forum could be specifically for intimate and vulnerable conversations. I think that it could be really valuable for there to be a private, safe container whose sole purpose is for dipping into this risky territory that Kevin so eloquently explains. I could imagine it only being available to people we know, people with whom we have shared face to face encouters at salons.

This is the area that I have most experience in online forums and I would be willing to offer my energy and commitment toward such a space at this site.

warmly,

ashley 

CI is emerging effortlessly

Submitted by George Por on February 3, 2006 - 20:27.
when we listen to every voice with the intent of becoming aware and making visible what we value in them. The Salon was good to teach us the power of appreciative listening. Staying connected to the field we created there, and still sensing everyone as part of it, helps keeping that new habit alive and kicking.  Wink

My thumb up for the continuum!

Submitted by Ria Baeck on February 3, 2006 - 20:08.

I like the collective intelligence that becomes visible in these comments, replys and the solution.

thanks to all of us who put their part in! 

Thank you Kevin

Submitted by Dana Lynne Andersen on February 3, 2006 - 20:00.
Thank you for your heartfelt words and for the image of the continuum. I think that is a very helpful way to view the options.

solution

Submitted by Dana Lynne Andersen on February 3, 2006 - 19:57.
George I think that is the best solution- a spectrum that meets both needs.

a continuum of a range from pubic to private

Submitted by George Por on February 3, 2006 - 06:21.

> think a continuum of a range from pubic to private is the best - just like in the outside world conversations.

Indeed. Why should it be either/or when some of us prefer and the technology allows that kind of flexibility? How about something like this:

Wikis - visitors and members read and write

Public forums - visitors read, members read and write

Member forums - members read and write

Authenticity - taking chances - vulnerability

Submitted by Kevin Kelley on February 3, 2006 - 04:47.
Public versus private raises issues for me about how much I open myself and how much I share and where my edge is on exposing new and delicate developing places within myself ... or for that matter old and delicate places for me. 
 
As seen once or twice in the Salon, I am willing to show up in vulnerable and rather exposed ways - when I feel a deep calling.  I think there is great value in doing that - for all of us.  We open and deepen the connection and the "authenticity" when we are honest to the core.  But even I do have my limits.  I want somewhere - where I can have intimate conversations, where we can go deep - share our selves - our delicate ideas - feelings or what is precioius to us.  Some of this is not what I am willing to do, yet, to the whole world. 
 
So, yes, to as much of what we are doing, saying - for all to see..
 
And
 
Lets also have some spaces where we can have intimate conversations, where we can take chances, and open ourselves, to depths that feel risky even with friends- but risks we are willing to take - because our hearts and souls take us there and becasue we know these people and because part of the shareing is an extending and deepening of the trust and the connection that can take us closer to the truth.. closer to our essence and into the Essence because there is a safe container within to open into what feels very risky.  So, I think a continuum of a range from pubic to private is the best - just like in the outside world conversations.  Thank you.
 
Kevin Kelley

Many others

Submitted by Fernanda Ibarra on February 3, 2006 - 01:53.
Many others feel the same way. I do.  We are in benefit for the whole.

I am enjoying learning more

Submitted by Dana Lynne Andersen on February 2, 2006 - 21:10.
I am enjoying learning more about online communities through your comments and ideas. I am not 'afraid' of strangers, I am asking questions and relating how I feel in the moment as well as expressing my values. I don't feel particulary attached either way except with regards to having my contact information made public because I have terrible fears of more junk mail (grin). Thanks for you passion.

Masterful listening

Submitted by George Por on February 2, 2006 - 20:51.

Ashley, thank you for your masterful listening even to my unspoken concerns! You expressed them very well.

> do you have personal experience being in a threatening situation with a forum that was open for the public to read?

Not "threatening," it's more like a certain intimacy gets lost but there is also lot to gain from wider access, no doubt. So it's a trade-off. I'm not attached to either way. To me the bigger question is how we will respond to requests of visitors to join Nexus as full  members. Following on Lion's lead, I opened a new topic related to that question, here.

Checking in

Submitted by Ashley Cooper on February 2, 2006 - 20:37.

Dear Dana and George,

After posting that last post, I realized that I never acknowledged how the two of you are feeling. My understanding is that the sense of community that you feel by knowing who is present here and that noone new or unknown to you can come in and 'mess up the space' allows for you to feel safer and more at ease expressing yourself vulnerably. I also here a fear of even more work arising from the forums being surfable and a concern that the integrity of the site will be lost to those with other purposes/intentions.

If my understanding is not correct, please share with me where I am off. I also wonder, do you have personal experience being in a threatening situation with a forum that was open for the public to read?

in efforts to better understand,

ashley 

Trusting Boundaries

Submitted by Ashley Cooper on February 2, 2006 - 20:27.

I have also been a part of other open communities. I have found that it is the depth of engagement that already exists in the community that sets the standards around which others join. Everyone won't be able to post. In order to post they would have to become a member. Often interested people learn from watching and observing online forum discussions. The non-posting participants are very much a real part of the collective (just as are the people who stay on the edges of the circle and never really say anything).

 For me, the online part of this Evolutionary movement is a powerful way of connecting with others who are already a part of this movement even if they weren't at (nor never heard of) the salons. I personally would enjoying inviting in other conversations with resonant people. I don't see this as becoming boundaryless, but I see it as a process of radical trust in the power of boundaries that naturally arise. We can be a part of a transparent community that addresses challenges and concerns when they arise. We can create a structure that is in congruence with our intentions, which for me are to be transparent. If members come on board and are not working together towards a shared purpose, then we will as a community grow through this challenge. I am interested in our actions being guided by trust in the highest possibilities and not guided by fear of our community being 'ruined by outsiders'.

Thanx Lion for the info on those options, and

Submitted by George Por on February 2, 2006 - 20:05.

> Drupal is messing with my links

 I guess that's because the module that creates a link to new page when you put together two capitalized words, is kicking in and thinking that you want to create a new page...

Unnecessarily Binary

Submitted by Lion Kimbro on February 2, 2006 - 19:24.

This seems unnecessarily binary to me.

Of course a community has boundaries. But those bounaries can be stepped into tiers with smooth edges.

This is how most "open" communities work.

I've been online for 3 years with CommunityWiki. Anybody can come by and read a post, and anybody can come by, and drop off a post. Some people just naturally "fit," and feel comfortable posting more frequently. They transparently become a community member.

See? It's not binary, and it's been working for ages. We even have a name for it: "Soft Security."

There are membership criteria. It doesn't always have to be articulated.

I support the desire for well defined goals. I also support the desire to include people who belong. There is no contradiction. We can make use of guide posts, to nudge people the way we'd like them to work with us.

BTW: Drupal is messing with my links. For some reason, it's making them not work, even though when I edit the HTML directly, everything is fine. Here are the links for copy and pasting into your browser.

a sense of community

Submitted by George Por on February 2, 2006 - 19:07.

I'm with Dana who wrote, "I would like to feel a tangible sense of the community I'm a part of, which I would lose if any and everyone could post on this site." Of course, we can give read-only access to the forums for surfers but that would generate a lot of applications for membership with full access.

Who will reply them? Saying what? On what basis? Do we want to become a boundaryless network with no membership criteria or a community with a shared purpose, whose memberhsip is defined as those who work together towards it?

Why would you feel that way?

Submitted by Lion Kimbro on February 1, 2006 - 17:56.

I've belonged to a lot of communities in my life, that people could visit.

Having visitors is a part of a lot of communities, I feel.

And having visitors can be immensely valuable- we don't know everything by ourselves, and people who would be a "perfect fit" would be a big benefit.

If someone was irritating, we could lock down new memberships in response.

(Yes: The software could probably allow reads, but not commenting. I don't know about contact information. I wish it were per-person, whether to reveal, or keep members only.) 

Questions about 'transparency'

Submitted by Dana Lynne Andersen on February 1, 2006 - 17:27.
Is having the forum open for viewing the same as having the ability to post also open to anyone? ALso, would the general public also have access then to our member page with its contact information? I would like to feel a tangible sense of the community I a part of, which I would lose if any and everyone could post on this site.

Agreed.

Submitted by Lion Kimbro on January 30, 2006 - 20:30.

I hesitate to write in a place that isn't publicly visible, or scanned by web crawlers.

I agree

Submitted by Ashley Cooper on January 30, 2006 - 19:35.

The opening of these meaningful conversations to a greater population (community) is very exciting and inviting to me.

Thanks, Ashley 

Default open

Submitted by John Abbe on January 30, 2006 - 10:00.
I'm with Ria - default open and close a forum only when someone wants to create a private space.