Re: [kGen] re: chairperson

[tobyslater <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel

I've been testing out the new Napster beta software and the days of paid-for
legitimate p2p media on the Web are nearly upon us. I've been pleasantly
surprised at how well the new Napster technology works.

This should provide impetus for anyone involved in Kendra to really push off
and get going.



> From: Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:17:07 +0000
> To: k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [kGen] re: chairperson
> 
> Hi there Toby and All,
> 
> Happy new year to you!
> 
> You raise some good points about the design of our ideal chairperson. The
> more we can talk about the structure and shape of what we want the more
> likely we are to bring it about by design. I like what you propose...
> Everyone should get the chance to say what they want. (That also ties in
> with what David Morris came up with late one New York evening: Each
> participant has an equal say in the direction of Kendra Initiative.) Also,
> we need to be able to come up with coherent objectives.
> 
> I must admit, though, I am far more inclined to see us come up procedures
> and criteria for how we want to do things rather than vote in a
> "personality" to make things happen for us. This actually goes to the core
> of Kendra Initiative: if you're part of the design process then you're far
> more likely to be involved in the designed product and hence far more
> likely to use (and buy in to) the product. In fact, one of the reasons why
> we're in the state we're in is that technology has been plonked down in
> front of the users without much listening to their requirements (business
> models) before hand. The very act of *listening* is a sales technique (to
> put it crudely) to get people to "buy in". And we want people to buy in to
> the Kendra vision.
> 
> To your fear... You are not alone in frustration with progress. (I'll
> admit, in part, frustration is what drives me to carry on.) In a way
> "talking amongst ourselves" is all we can ever do. That's not such a bad
> thing if we continue to grow the number of "ourselves" and it is growing.
> To get "things done" don't we have to first define what it is that we want
> to get done? That takes discussion and a design process and documentation
> and people willing to document.
> 
> I guess I have faith that as we further define what is required the correct
> structure will be put it place so bringing clarity.
> 
> Cheers Daniel
> 
> At 15:19 09/11/01 +0100, tobyslater wrote:
>> Well, let's talk by reference to the last meeting. The chairperson might
>> help you out in terms of introducing and structuring the day's events.
>> 
>> When it comes to fielding different ideas from contributors I would expect
>> the chairperson to be fairly strict, let's say in the same way as the
>> speaker of the House of Commons might be. Each idea or suggestion from each
>> contributor needs to get some airtime, the quieter members of the group need
>> to have their opinions listened to, and the more vocal members might need to
>> be silenced from time to time!
>> 
>> To some degree the chairperson also needs to drive forward the progress of
>> meetings, ensuring that the objectives for each meeting are achieved.
>> 
>> What I fear is that in two years we could still be talking amongst ourselves
>> and not actually getting things done. I would hope to nominate someone with
>> the kind of personality that draws the best out of all contributors.
>