Those are interesting points [799] & Ivan, I agree with both of your views. I 
also like the concept of moving guides/scripts over to the official Qubes doc's 
for final review if it reaches a certain minimum of quality. Keeping it 
separate in some sense to differentiate quality, seems like a good call as well.

Some of the issues/questions addressed seems like they could be solved quite 
effectively and efficiently on a highly customize-able forum? For example we'd 
be able to segment things cleanly, like moving work/posts between forums as 
they develop and gain quality, until the final stage where it's polished and 
published to Qubes doc page for official review, once it meets Qubes minimum 
quality standards, but preferably higher than minimum of course, so we don't 
risk spam the Qubes doc page. Maybe some things, despite being good quality, 
might not belong on the Qubes doc page, what belongs there? Should everything 
with high quality be added? or should there be a category limitations in 
addition to quality limitation?

As you suggested, I indeed don't mind to help doing something like that either, 
if we're going with forum approach (or something else), can I help move the 
work topics (like a single topic for a project-work-place) between the forum 
quality segments as the various scripts and guides evolve. It's also 
interesting that project activity can be traced back inside that topic, even 
after it has been moved to higher quality, so that it retains its history. Also 
Ivan, even if you're less active due to busy real life schedule, it'd make 
sense if you have similar capabilities if find something that needs moderation 
and got spare-time to do it, which adds flexibility. I'm not sure who else 
might be interested in helping out with this either? For example we won't be 
around 24/7, even if you're more busy than me I can't be around 24/7 either, so 
it might be a good idea to have a team of moderators, though of course we can 
start small and scale up as needed with new moderators as we learn to trust new 
people over time. It shouldn't matter if some moderators are less active 
either. When getting new moderators, then we can also for example segment 
moderators and global moderators. While the global moderators can moderate all 
the content segments, and segment moderators is kind of self-explanatory at 
this point, which are those who have less responsibility, for example new 
moderators when the script community grows. 

I think it also becomes more clear if we have different stages of development. 
For example if different stages have different kind of nature of qualities (See 
below). The first stage being a convincing useful concept. The second state 
practical solutions being developed. Then in order to reach the late polishing 
quality stage, it must have a united concept and roughly finished development. 
Then in the late stage, if it can't reach the final touch of subjective 
judgment, it'll remain there until it can surpass quality judgements. Then we 
could for example post all finished guides/scripts to the front page, which 
allows everyone to quickly see something is finished, without having to dig 
through all the otther topics, as well as people who only visit the website, 
only to keep check on the blog. 

For example the blog front page allows people to quickly visit, to check if 
something new is out, and then maybe have a look at the details, perhaps find 
some weaknesses and give feedback in the comment section. This way it gives a 
last opportunity to bring it to focus and review otherwise finished work, even 
if people don't read all the topics in the forums. Once everything checks out, 
for example let it be 14 or 30 days on the blog page for additional review? 
before posting it to the Qubes docs.  

- Early conception stage forum (concepts to be discussed, can also act as a 
spam filter).
- Middle stage development forum (work has started and its starting to take 
shape. One can start out alone, maybe others will join to help).
- Late stage polishing forum (testing, finding errors, security and reliability 
- Pre-review on front-page's blog (for i.e. 14/30 days).
- Published to Qubes doc page if it passes (or Qubes sub-doc page if needed).

Where appropriate, we can ask the question if it's fitting for a Qubes doc 
page. For example those 5 quality checkers you put forward Ivan.

Then, by looking into these different forums, one will know every topic is in 
concept phase, or if looking into the development forum and all topics are in 
their development phase and anyone can drop in to help in different topics. Yet 
another forum for the late stages, and all topics here require reviews, hunts 
for errors and polishing.

So we have a 2D axis here, one dimension is the segmentation of forum boards, 
forums, and sub-forums, while the other dimension is a layer of 
segment-users/moderator/global-moderator/admin capability. It adds a flexible 
work-place with flexible order and structure, and it's also very scale-able too 
as the community grows and/or changes over time. I start to like the forum 
idea, what do you guys think about it? Maybe there are some downsides/upsides I 
didn't consider?

We can also make sticky posts in the appropriate fitting forums, with 
information, guides and approaches, guides how to navigate and use the script 
community, and even guides introducing Qubes official website. For example we 
could help Qubes gain new people if they come to the script community first, 
before Qubes, so some kind of sticky posts like that seems warranted too.

It is also possible to make website pages next to the forum/frontpage-blog, for 
example if we need some pages for more visible content.

Some other considerations are the transparency, trust and logs, and the mix of 
privacy and freedom as well. Should we keep an eye on the logs on the 
moderators and admin changes, etc. Transparency is good, but it might also 
remove the need for trust, and trust is healthy as well. Similar keeping eyes 
on logs and looking over others shoulders and corrode trust too. Yet trust can 
also be abused if not kept in check, and power is said to corrode as well, 
corrupting a person. Seemingly it can happen to anyone, power is dangerous. So 
it's an interesting dynamic in various different direction of different issues 
connected, though, very problematic to balance properly in practice.

It seems like logs should be attempted to be changed on how they are viewed (a 
matter of shifting perspective). So that for example a moderator can feel 
relaxed with the logs, rather than being worried about making a mistake that 
can be seen in the logs or looking over ones own shoulder (which is stressful). 
Like logs can be empowering too for a moderator, which can justify actions. 
Seeing logs as a safety mechanism protecting a moderator, rather than as a 
means to hunt down corruption, while it still prevents corruption by protecting 
the moderator at the same time. I think this shifted perspective is value-able 
as a moderator or online community where someone has power. In the past I've 
felt comfortable with having logs, personally for me it removes the worry that 
some might speculate and make claims, like for example some random guy is 
claiming a moderator is abusing power, when one really is not, at which times 
having logs is very nice. And even if someone isn't throwing fingers, a 
moderator might feel uncomfortable with the possibility of people thinking it. 
So this way logs can also be seen as a way to humanize moderators, rather than 
dehumanize moderators, allowing to feel free despite the burden which the 
responsibility of moderation can carry.   

Still pondering about the names, I haven't really thought about that yet. Those 
are some interesting candidates already, maybe we can align them all next to 
each others to compare and pick between, take some time to come up with the 
best name. It might also change depending on the platform/approach we choose? 
For example if it ends up on github then adding repository to the name makes 
good sense, but it might not make much sense on a forum or another platform. So 
I think it depends on what we choose to go with. 

Thoughts about using a forum? Possibly with a frontpage blog?

If we indeed go with something like this, forum or some other platform, as you 
also questioned Ivan, who is interested in being a moderator? I'm okay with 
helping out with it, but I probably will need help to cover everything, 
especially when I have exams and so on. If having a handful moderators, it 
increases the odds that there always will at least be one around who isn't 
sleeping, at work, studying, living life, taking a break from online 
activities, and what else might cause down-time. Also creates redundancy if one 
or few is less active or becomes inactive. It might not be a big issue in the 
beginning though, considering we'd be starting out small.

btw a thought just occurred to me, we could also have a forum section (or 
something else if we don't go with forums) to discuss legal issues, for example 
what is appropriate/inappropriate, legal/illegal, ethical/unethical in regards 
to using existing work, such as codes and artworks. How to properly cite and 
credit them. Putting disclaimers where disclaimers needed. These waters 
generally seem very muddy, and it seems few people actually have full awareness 
of every aspect in this chaotic place of 'borrowing' from other peoples work. 
So it'd be nice to create a place where one can seek clarification on how laws 
and ethics play out, or even ask questions if unsure about a certain piece of 
artwork or code. Though we should probably put a disclaimer, that we're not 
lawyers. If anyone gets a lawsuit for copyright breach, that advice's in this 
forum are suggestive guidelines, and not professional lawyers (probably 
unlikely to happen unless it was some pretty bad copyright breach and one 
probably was not very careful with ownership checks, but still). It serves as a 
warning for users, while helpful legal information, it is still important to be 
careful and skeptical when working with other people's owned copyright, what is 
allowed, and what isn't. Which too also includes ethics of course, but I guess 
that depends on the individuals morale. Though any work done on such a place, I 
feel, should adhere to ethics too, and not just morale. Thoughts?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit

Reply via email to