Hi @Darren! (and @almereyda )
I don't think you're stirring things up! My feeling and sense from this discussion, as well as points previously made, is that broadly speaking we agree, at least those more tech savvy of unMon contributors (which is probably worth noting only a third-ish).
My approach has been pretty basic; use what works for the most people but continually scan for open source alternatives with a view to transitioning where ever possible. Hence discourse. One of the key requirements in my mind is interoperability between a combination of: devices / platforms / work practices. Obviously there's no one size fits all.
The major stumbling block for me (if I am honest) is this; I work across lots of groups and projects, unMonastery has existing significant overheads both socially and technically, if we shift the technology stack over or even one platform to something that is exclusive to unMon, then that creates additional and significant overhead to my personal stack. Presumably this will also be true for many others across the initiative.
In practical terms what that looks like for me (and I raise this because I think it's also true of others involved) - I am part of 7 separate organisations that use trello (not including personal boards), and part of 9 slack channels that I contribute to regularly, most daily. Meaning not only is it easier to transition people from those orgs and groups to unMon channels if they want to be involved but I passively maintain an overview on activity whilst working on others things and am able to work simultaneously across different orgs at the same time.
Add to this my comment about tech savvyness and not everyone being so, not everyone can glide between the use of different platforms, particularly those that emphasise data security preferences over usability and are able to flick a switch to adapt to new platforms overnight, @Bembo_Davies comes to mind - so another overhead is making sure everyone is comfortable with the tech.
Does that make sense? And is it useful to say all this?
This isn't an argument against transition but rather I think it's exceptionally important to raise the various issues that exist now (and probably always have) around adoption of various platforms and services.
But to be more pragmatic!
- Open discussion (slow) - Discourse
- Closed discussion (rapid) - Slack (open by 1st of Jan)
- Document Archive - Google Drive >>> Plan is to begin now migrating archive material to our wiki (because it seems a lot of people read it and many of the archivists are comfortable using doku-wiki)
- Document Collaboration - Google Drive >>> Plan to switch to OwnCloud (currently I am -very slowly- auditing all our files, so that can happen)
- Task Management - Trello (this has become relatively inactive and could actually be retired / migrated effectively across to one of the above platforms)
- Video Meetings - still regularly ends up being Google Hangouts (but we should shift the culture now to what you suggest, or @keikreutler identified something that was even better a few weeks ago)
- Loomio - Decision making in Athens
- Github - Code
In addition to this I had previously suggested to EdgeRyders and more recently Robinhood Coop and OSCE that we combine efforts in doing a planned path towards exclusively open source platforms and tools, whilst also identifying best practices - this for me makes the most sense going forward because there's a greater chance that adoption will be accomplished and interoperability between initiatives been increased rather than decreased by becoming an island of specialised tools.
Last note, as part of this snail pace audit I am doing, I was going to map out all the tools, platforms and how they've evolved over time and map where everything is (it's very fragmented) - it might also be useful to do this kind of audit for other orgs and groups simultaneously in order to achieve the above! Thoughts?