Re: [kSum] Mark Stuart's draft agenda for April 2...

["Mark Stuart" <marcusgarby@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, 

Firstly, can those members wishing to revise the meeting plan so that it only
takes place in the afternoon please speak up... otherwise I propose we
still allocate the entire day to this work.

-- 

Thanks for your feedback Gordon, I agree the agenda is somewhat ambitious and I would be very happy if we achieved its goals in fact. So, I understand your concern but remain of the opinion that we need to make some constructive progress soon. This is going to prove critical IMO to give impetus to Wiki work that as you rightly point out should be happening between now and the June meeting and give credence to any press release that follows the meeting on the 4th... 

I really hope we can all agree on purpose, scope, process by the next meeting and lay some foundations in place to support this agreement. Personally, waiting until June before getting any traction and leaving the Wiki to remain relatively silent (again?) is not satisfactory. 

More feedback is needed - either in favour of the current agenda or to bring an alternative perspective. If people are in support of Gordons view then I am happy to clear the sheet and work with Gordon and Daniel to produce a different agenda - so please let me know your thoughts.

Deborah, do you know who's attending? Can those planning to attend email k-summit list? 

Best regards, 

Mark Stuart.

On 3/29/07, Gordon Rae <gordon.rae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark,

 

I think the agenda covers the right topics, but its very ambitious given the stage we are at. Especially ambitious is the way you put  "Agreement" down after fifteen minutes. J ) I think realistically we can unify the outputs of the last meeting, position our initiative relative to other standards and projects in the field, and identify some "ext action" that we can get stuck into between now and the June meeting. If we achieve that next week, the April newsletter will engage people's energy and we can get the whole Kendra community to start posting use cases, stakeholder analysis etc.  Is that helpful?

 

Gordon

 

 

 

 

 

---

From: owner- k-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- k-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Stuart
Sent: 29 March 2007 12:26
To: k-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [kSum] Mark Stuart's draft agenda for April 2...

 

Daniel,

You have hit on a point I had forgotten about - namely the facilitating our US colleagues joining. I need to review the agenda in light of this and your other comments and shift some of the intended topics - stakeholder / use cases analysis to the July meeting. It makes sense given the time limitations.

I shall review the agenda on the Wiki at the earliest opportunity.

Regards,

Mark.

On 3/27/07, Daniel Harris < daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark's struck a good balance. There always needs to be an equal emphasis on doing what is necessary to make the Kendra vision come to reality and on defining what Kendra is. Kendra is "what ever it takes" to bring the vision to reality. The vision is set. We've just got to keep on doing the necessaries.

Wasn't this meeting called to discuss Summit2 at the end of June? Which day: 27, 28 or 29? Where? Who to invite? Agenda for the day? That information was then going in the newsletter on the April 4, yes? And so people would be given a good amount of notice, yes?

Didn't we decide that this meeting would be in the afternoon (I wrote down 1430 to 1700 in my diary) to facilitate our US colleagues joining in with the video/audio/web conference?

We should also review Gordon's cross-media metadata questions that should have got asked at the Summit:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-events/msg00037.html

What else?

Cheers Daniel

On 27/03/2007 09:45, Daniel Harris wrote:
> http://www.kendra.org.uk/wiki/wiki.pl?KendraMeeting20070402