[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [kGen] chairperson?
At 13:31 29/10/01 +0100, tobyslater wrote:
>Thanks so much for organising the Kendra meeting the other day - very
>helpful, enlightening and enjoyable. I look forward to the next event.
Nice one! The great thing about the meeting is that I *didn't* organise it.
So, please do also thank BlueArc and especially Donal the Madden and of
course all the speakers and the participants. And while we're about
thanking I'd like to say I thought your talk was so clear and concise and
really laid down "what you want" which is, I think, incredibly powerful. I
can't wait until it's up in video archive...
>I did have one idea as a result of the meeting which I hope you won't take
>as an insult but instead as a constructive suggestion. I would be glad of
>your feedback on this matter.
There is absolutely *no* way you can insult me. Honest. In fact, it's your
ideas and desires that I want to hear more than anything else. It's all I'm
trying to get from people. Let me explain... All I want to have happen is
the Kendra system (or one like it) to be up and running so that I can use
it. I want to use it at home - I'm a frustrated consumer. I am not precious
about the Kendra name or logo (but, I think, they're good promotional
tools) or my position or anything else associated with the project. I am
only trying to investigate what works and be clear about what works and
push for what works in the interests of what will take us to our goal. That
means people having ideas, expressing their desires, discussing the issues
and being involved in the project. So, fire away...
>Here goes: I wonder if it might be productive to nominate someone as a
>chairperson for the meetings. The aim would be to enable everyone's opinion
>to be aired and every suggestion to be solicited without allowing the more
>vocal contributors (eg me!) to take over everything.
Or me! ;-)
Great idea! You should really take a look at what David Morris said on the
idea of structure, here:
That was in response to my email looking at the need for collaborative
systems within Kendra here:
>You would of course remain the point man, making all the connections with
>participants as you have already been doing so well, but it would free you
>up to make your own suggestions and not to have to be piggy in the middle
>(especially as you personally know a number of the participants).
What exactly does "point man" mean?
Couldn't we get all of the participants making connections to each other by
themselves without my involvement? :-/
>Of course the right choice of chairperson would be important (although it
>doesn't always have to be the same person), but I do think it would help to
>maintain progress as the project continues.
Yeh... Hmmm... The right choice of chairperson... How will we know? Could
you elaborate on what functions need to be carried out by the chairperson?
You've said what the aims are for a chairperson but, right now, the vision
I have of them is a bit of an amorphous blob (as Spock would say) and what
would really help, I think, is if we could start to bring some
form/solidification to the role/actions of the chairperson.
So, what do they need to be doing in order to fulfill their role? Perhaps
one way of looking at it is to say what didn't work in the meeting and
offer possible solutions. By the way, I think it's OK to talk about things
that don't work as long as one does it with a view to providing solutions.
The former without the latter, I hope we can all agree, needs to be avoided.
This is getting exciting. Let's carry on the discussion... I look forward
to your reply...