[edit - as this thread is closed feel free to message me if you would like jion discussion in private]
I don’t actually know who I’m addressing here nor what the conventions are etc so pls excuse anything that’s clumsy .
Having read much that I assume is the continuing aspiration of the CDCK community I have repeatedly attempted to hold, with the view to curating - conversations around the drivers that software for the next generation of conversation on the internet will need to be cognisant of .
For example how medical ethics, GDPR and peer support forum challenges drive architecture and plugins
Every jurisdiction imposes data protection regulations on digital platforms. Ditto medical ethics that have been the subject of legislation for decades if not centuries - certainly the conventions are centuries old. The integration of the pair has not even started. Indeed the meta conversation such as the formulation of data interchange & anonymization & and integration and equivalence in emerging digitally enabled/instrumented therapeutic tools standards for research driven off the back of pools of community members with shared medical needs has not started. Although I am in discussions with a local authority about moving in this direction and a vendor or two - if I was to use discourse as a component of that solution we would need to know that the development community actually understood that there were needs. As a development community understand that there are billions of dollars in this field! Attitudes so far have not allowed enquiring conversation
We The participants have repeatedly being subject to unilateral thread closure. I personally and a number of others I gather have been subject to various ‘conversations’ as a result that are a frustration and diverts energy to be spent unproductively for both me, other participants and moderation efforts. I am quite happy to acknowledge the moderation against a set of guidelines (Which I haven’t been shown evidence of actually existing) has been consistent and fair and civil - as I know I and believe all other participants have likewise been.
However if the moderation guidelines cause the moderation actions experienced, and the conversations that we wish to hold are relevant (as endless numbers of quotes from codinghorror etal and introductory posts in different categories here would make a safe conclusion) then we have a dichotomy .
Continuing to bash our heads against the contradictions is painful for everyone.
I propose a valuable solution will be to create a category or group or other mechanism with a charter which explicitly encourages conversations that have elements of discovery, philosophy, aspiration, future opportunity orientation etc with a view to deriving principles, patterns and anti patterns, design guidelines etc and recognise that these encompass conversation that is divergent before they are convergent with conclusions directly usable in architecture, feature identification, backlog grooming, selection, coding / testing and rollout
Something that allows those who want a deterministic conversations around topics with single themes and definitive answers the option to avoid and not see.
AND something that allows those who are elsewhere on the simple vs complex spectrum to seek debate within - so only those who self-select to be a member for as long as they wish join-in. A charter that explicitly calls for exercise of open-minded, inclusive, psychologically safe/ tolerant etc, practises in the discussions - I believe the recognition for that is already covered by the aspiration to “civilised” & "s/w for The next 10 years (or more)” but not currently the delivery
Can relevantly empowered folk advise of any procedure/protocol that will result in energy’s being spent productively and moderation effort directed where it is needed rather than where it’s good faith efforts have the unintended side effect of suppressing conversation & has detrimental effects on everybody’s blood pressure and well-being
Thanks in anticipation