RE: [kGen] re: chairperson

["Brendan Harkin" <brendan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

more talk about the whole thing please!

what's going on there ?????





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of tobyslater
> Sent: 18 January 2002 11:34
> To: k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [kGen] re: chairperson
>
>
> 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.
> >
>