OK October 19, 2010
It's very fluid - collaborating through choice, joining and leaving, sharing the journey, different individuals taking the lead, and sometimes benefitting from not having to push forward at the front (hmm - is that what it means to be in a slip stream of something - going along as fast as the leaders but without quite so much effort, taking a comparative rest sometimes but still keeping up?)
If someone could get the confluence thing right it would be wonderful. It would give us the digital space that we need.
In my mind, when it is really complete with ultimate user-friendliness it would be the "place" I have been looking for (not just for me but for others too ) a "place" where finally computers and I would be working together in the way I like to do things (I'm very analogue) instead of the other way round.
This ties in with an introduction I did yesterday - and my appreciation of Ross Gardler and the chance of working with him again - I wrote "We were working at that difficult interface where user meets techie. It is where the fluid “analogue” information flow of users splash and surge around the rigid, disciplined, digital, information channels that the programmer can provide. Ross gave me clear simple options and instructions, often referring me to the most elementary level of help provided for people in Apache, but I struggled to make any sense of it all." ( October 18, 2010 - Ross Gardler and Michael Maranda )
I think this is why I am so encouraged by the network that Michael is introducing me to - I feel more of us are gathering to splash around at that interface - and in my experience such opportunities are rare and precious.
Pam
Lovely exposition of confluence Pam :)I remember that Confluence was very focused on individuals, and how they could easily flow in and out of coordination with each other, like flocking birds.OpenKollab tends to be more focused on coordination of organisations, which are a bit more like elephants than birds :)How can we make it easier for organisations to fall in and out of loose project agreements with each other?On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Pamela McLean <pamela.mclean@dadamac.net> wrote:
ref "project matching"i agree it should be easy for people to "match" what they are interested in, with the projects that others are interested in, so that they can come closer and flow together - confluence
To me the beauty of the potential of confluence, as it seemed to me, is that it provides the opportunity to keep things very open. As a potential user I want to share vision and the direction I hope to go, and what stumbling blocks are in the way = but as for the details of who I will need to work with and how.. that will be very fluid and organic. That is the big challenge of something like Confluence
Getting from vision to actuality (in an "Earth Date Zero" way) has to be quite "opportunistic" (in my experience), more like sailing than going in a motor boat - not obviously headed in the right direction all the time - lots of changing direction and tacking across the wind. Given the wind keeps changing you can't be too precise about details of the journey in advance.
Pam
On 19 October 2010 04:10, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin@gmail.com> wrote:
There is standard for this kind of thing, in general, though reading
the wiki of course the standard doesn't cover everything.http://www.xml.gov/stratml/index.htm
StratML allows a project to place a machine readable document on their
site, or in another place, that describes what the organization is
doing.Here is a form from the tools page that allows anyone to make their own:
http://xmldatasets.net/XF2/stratmlxform3.xmlOne published into a catalog the forms can be machine processed.
I'm interested in being a part of groups and networks where
broadcasting information, at least high level general information like
this, and keeping it current, is judged important and so updated
regularly.It's possible to imagine lots of ways to database the fields, and
changes over time, for each project or organization.From the StratML site:
Strategy Markup Language (StratML) is an XML vocabulary and schema for
strategic plans. Its purposes include but may not be limited to the
following:
Facilitate the sharing, referencing, indexing, discovery, linking,
reuse, and analyses of the elements of strategic plans, including goal
and objective statements as well as the names and descriptions of
stakeholder groups and any other content commonly included in
strategic plans.
Enable the concept of "strategic alignment" to be realized in literal
linkages among goal and objective statements and all other records
created by organizations in the routine course of their business
processes.
Facilitate the discovery of potential performance partners who share
common goals and objectives and/or either produce inputs needed or
require outputs produced by the organization compiling the strategic
plan.
Facilitate stakeholder feedback on strategic goals and objectives.
Facilitate updating and maintenance of discrete elements of strategic
plans without requiring review and approval of the entire plan through
bureaucratic channels, thereby helping to make the strategic planning
process more agile and responsive to stakeholder feedback and changing
circumstances, thus helping to overcome the tendency of strategic
plans to become outdated "shelfware".
Reduce the needless time, effort, inconsistencies, and delays
associated with maintaining data redundantly in myriad "stovepipe"
systems rather than referencing the authoritative sources.
Enable agencies to comply with the provisions of subsections 202(b)(4)
& (5) and 207(d) of the eGov Act, which respectively require agencies
to:
Work together to link their performance goals to key groups, including
citizens, businesses, and other governments, as well as internal
Federal Government operations; and
Adopt open standards (e.g., StratML) enabling the organization and
categorization of Government information in a way that is searchable
electronically and interoperably across agencies.
Note: On June 16, 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2142,
the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance Improvement
Act. If enacted, it will require the Federal Government to review
programs and agencies at least every five years to assess their
performance and to improve operations, with special emphasis on
programs that are performing similar functions, serve similar
populations, have similar purposes, or share common objectives.
Documenting the goals, objectives, and stakeholders for each program
in StratML format on the Web would facilitate the purposes of the
legislation.
> --
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Suresh Fernando <suresh2323@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tav,
>
> Further to Pamela`s suggestion, it might be interesting to reopen the
> project matching conversation on Confluence wiki if you folks think this is
> appropriate.
>
> In my wildest dreams, the matching process is automated somehow so that if I
> am trying to find someone with aligned intentions I don`t have to scroll
> through each project or organization that has submitted data manually.
>
> What are you thoughts on that? Is this something that we can approximate in
> some way within this context?
>
> For those not familiar with the discussion on project matching, here are
> some of the notes that we posted some time ago to the OK wiki:
>
> Super and subordinate goals
> Project Mapping
>
>
>
> --
> Suresh Fernando
> YOUTUBE, OK WEBSITE, OK FAN PAGE, BLOG, TWITTER, FACEBOOK, WOTW FAN PAGE
>
> 'The counter cultural revolution was a rhizomatic meshwork of
> loosely-coordinated, loosely-affiliated struggles. The goals of these
> struggles weren’t always complimentary, but the struggles were aligned and
> together they staged a mass offensive to shatter the status quo'. - from The
> Coalition of the Willing
>
> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> To post to this group, send email to openkollab@googlegroups.com