Re: [kFW] Needed: Collaborative systems for driving consensus...

["Gordon Ross" <gordon@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From Gordon Ross
Infocube,

The minutes of the last meeting should be out in the next 24 hours. There is
a lot of good content so they make interesting reading even for those not at
the event.
Not sure the suggestion of a traditional organisation structure aligns with
the Kendra way of doing things.

Two suggestions
1    A monthly informal social at a pub in London and New York (First
Tuesday of the month?) Anyone can go just to keep up to day and keep the
more formal bits going
2    Special Interest Groups (SIGs) each of which nominates a person and
these people form a coordinating group (maybe meeting quarterly (again both
London and New York) to clarify issues which can be bought back to full
meetings. The Special Interest Groups report on their own individual trials
and developments at the larger meetings, and the full group addresses wider
issues and interfaces between the SIGs

Special Interest Groups could reflect teh current Kendra Membership (details
in the minutes) i.e.

        Music focus
        Films
        Writers
        maybe as specialisms within a Content Creation Group

        Content Distribution e.g. ISP's and others

        Infrastructure (Hardware and Software and Networks)

        User Interface (we can show some things that deliver convergence
user interfaces across PC, TV, 3G and content)

        Billing systems and payments

        General group of people with many interests, consultants and
individuals not interested in any of the above specific SIGS

        and maybe a group looking at Sponsorship, Events, Promotion,
Membership, and Marketing.

Each focal person servers for a fixed period (8 to 12 months) and rotates

    Then a Chairperson and Secretary or Secretariat

Nice and Simple and dynamic. Maybe worth considering.

Convergence cannot happen by default or accident. Just too many things to
consider. We need convergence by design and this might give it.

Regards

Gordon

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Morris" <dmorris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <k-framework@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:39 PM
Subject: RE: [kFW] Needed: Collaborative systems for driving consensus...


> So, any input on this?  Or is non-response tacit approval?  I have always
> been of the mind that if you don't object then you agree by default.
Please
> send you nominations for the following positions to Daniel or me by 12:00
> noon Zulu on Nov. 9th.
>
> President
> Vice President (Europe)
> Vice President (US)
> Secretary
> Treasurer
> Counsel (legal, if possible)
> Senior Advisor (3)
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Morris [mailto:dmorris@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:50
> To: 'k-framework@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [kFW] Needed: Collaborative systems for driving
> consensus...
>
>
> Kendra has been a true democracy to date and a very effective one.
Everyone
> gets to discuss their points of view on every topic.  This is good way to
> interact when you have a small group, however more structure is need in a
> larger group.  Without the structure, large democracies can fall under
their
> own weight.  This is an impediment to growth and development.  I believe
> that we should consider instituting a formalized structure on to Kendra.
> This will compartmentalize discussions by subject to the interested and
> knowledgeable parties. We are not attempting to impede the flow of
> information, just modify the flow.  Each team could work independently and
> bring their findings before the all members to review, debate and ratify.
> So, we could chose to restructure how the information flows within the
> groups and the organization.  Again, we are not attempting to impede the
> flow of information, just structure it for greater efficacy of the
> organization.
>
> I propose that we elect a short term governing body from the members at
> large.  Their purpose is to build the new framework for the Kendra
> Initiative.  After careful consideration, the governing body should bring
> its proposal(s) before the members to vote in whole or segments.  The
> following position would be up for nominations from the members at large:
>
> President
> Vice President (Europe)
> Vice President (US)
> Secretary
> Treasurer
> Counsel (legal, if possible)
> Senior Advisor (3)
>
> What do ya'll think?
>
> David Morris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Harris [mailto:daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 18:58
> To: k-framework@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [kFW] Needed: Collaborative systems for driving consensus...
>
>
> Hi there All,
>
> Been thinking... [crowd shouts in unison - "duck everyone!"]... about how
> to communicate better. Using these lists a number of problems have arisen
> that perhaps need to be solved in order to enable Kendra Initiative to
move
> forward. Here are some issues I've had and *possible* fragments of
> solutions. Beware, this is brain dump style email...
>
> Everything has to be said in the open - I'm having a real hard time
talking
> to people (one to one) about Kendra. I see that what's being said could be
> going out to 100's and not just a handful. Also, in having closed
> conversations I feel I am going behind people's backs and it's not of
> benefit to the project. Many times I have asked people to re-send their
> email to Kendra lists where I will reply (open), rather than reply to them
> personally (closed). This is all fine for discussion lists that get
> archived but what about one to one or small group communication - they
need
> to be archived too. Perhaps send all email to a Kendra alias such as:
> daniel.harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or something like that. People can then
> see what's being said to me and also what I reply. Every kParticipant
> (people exposed on the website) would have such an alias. Only
> kParticipant's could send to aliases and participate in the discussion.
> Though anybody could listen anonymously just as they can view the web
> archives anonymously. There can be no anonymous input as that removes
> responsibility from one's words. Expose!
>
> Many times people have tried to send to a list only to be bounced. All
> kParticipants should be able to send to topic without having to explicitly
> subscr!be to a list. But they should only start receiving from a list once
> they have either sent to it or explicitly subscr!bed to it. We should be
> able to set up in our profile what our "send" and "receive" email
> address(es) are. They could be multiple and different for each. We need as
> much functionality in email only as for web only users.
>
> Could discussions be more dynamic so instead of people joining a list they
> join or create a topic dynamically? Not sure where that thought goes but
> something about linking these topics in a mind map kind of way. Maybe
> that's more future stuff.
>
> Problem with mailing lists - People get turned off really quickly getting
> too many emails and not relevant to their topic. Wouldn't it be good if
> people could set a threshold for the number of emails that they get. Or
> only receive email that have had a certain number of recommendations.
> Hopefully, not everyone will set the threshold at >1 recommendation! ;-)
>
> Perhaps all this collaborative system is a trial too. When viewed as a
> trial one can see why it needs a lot more structure than it currently has.
> It needs to evolve with input. Filtering in and accentuating "what works".
> In fact, as Willy Wonka said "accentuate the positive and eliminate the
> negative"... [croud burst into roaring applause and good old Bing starts
to
> sing (backed by crowd). You can join in too:
> http://www.heptune.com/lyrics/accenttc.html
> ...] Sorry, lost it there for a second... ;-/
>
> Everyone needs to play a part in the editing process. Collective editors.
> Some sort of rating/recommendation system. Perhaps 2 states: "I have read
> the email" and "I have read the email and I recommend it". Could be a
> couple of URLs or mailto's at the bottom of each email depending on what
> each participant prefers. Peer pressure? Keep people involved in the
> process of creation and show that what they say has a direct/demonstrable
> result on the outcome. That's very important - "I made this!" Motivation!
>
> Remove hierarchy - Just like on the Internet (pretty much). We *could*
just
> put moderators in place. But what rules would they use to moderate? We
know
> the goal that Kendra is trying to reach. But we don't know the rules,
> methods, tasks or tools that need to be followed/used to achieve the goal.
> We have to make the rules up and modify as we go along. There, I said it,
> we are all moderators. What works will float to the surface.
>
> Another point... any system like this that we are working must enhance the
> current system. Big changes in the way we operate can confuse people and
> that means loosing people. One example of this was when we moved from the
2
> old lists to the current 4 lists. Each of the old lists had a lot of
> activity and things seemed to be going well. But when we moved over people
> had to subscr!be again through their profile web area. Not only did quite
a
> few people not re-subscr!be but also the list traffic died. A real shame.
> One to avoid. Having all the list subscr!ption information in a database
> means that one wont be a problem again as we can generate list members for
> any new system we go to and maintain continuity.
>
> In order to build it we have to become it. What I mean is: in order to
> construct Kendra we need to understand what it is and in order to do that
> we have to put our selves within it, so that we can be it. Hopefully,
> pulling myself out of a recursive loop here, all these trials are part of
> the process of finding out what works and hence what methods/tools to use
> for construction. It's an iterative process. The answer to the chicken and
> egg problem is iteration! It's all getting very Zen, isn't it? ;-)
>
> Thanks to John Oliver, Gordon Ross and Joe Pietroni (he says he only reads
> Kendra emails with "joe" in them! Ha! Ha! ;-) for recent discussions on
> this subject.
>
> Needless to say: comments anyone?...
>
> Cheers Daniel
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.mimesweeper.com
> **********************************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.mimesweeper.com
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>