Who We Are (TedErnst, Brandon CS Sanders, Obed Suhail, Asad Butt, MartinPfahler, Wally Wilson User:fridemar)
Why we're doing this
The AboutUsLogo showed us that users of the sites aren't of one accord about WhoWeAre. This project is to provide a place for working on a that, perhaps multifaceted, definition of ourselves.
We know we are done when
When the first WhoWeAre statement is adopted, we're done with phase one.
How can I help?
now
- think about defining "forward progress" - how do we know if the process is still moving forward? how do we manage expectations so people know this may take as long as it takes, but we want to still be moving
- sharing strategies for keeping up with what's happening, for example watchlist including email on edit
Engaging facilitators
- Facilitators could invite non-facilitator participants to view their status pages and update their comment and/or status. Most people don't yet know WhoWeAre is active.
-
Everyone that's listed themselves as a faciliator could be contacted and sent where? To a place on this page for facilitators? Do we have anything for them to do yet? Well, they could be invited to change their status message, as a first step, or add themselves if they don't appear on the list of participants yet. Everyone on the below list was contacted 11:42, 20 August 2007 (PDT) and asked to update their comment and/or status, and to take a look here.
- link from here to the ConsensusPollFacilitator page and invite them to look at it?
If you'd like to help facilitate (you don't need any experience to help) add your name to this list.
future
If you'd like to help with facilitation of this process, you can do it, quite simply! Here's how:
- Listen to NotYets
- In another tab or window, go to WhoWeAre.
- Take a look at the people on the Not Yet list.
- Click on the "edit" link next to one of those people.
- Read their comment and try to tweak WhoWeAre to reflect their concerns.
- Repeat back the concerns you heard and the steps you took to try and incorporate them.
- Repeat for as many people as you'd like to help with.
- Invite Yeses
- Comment on every person that's a YES to ask them if they are still a YES and see if they want to be a facilitator
Stage 2
- What about collecting the different opinions in a table/spreadsheet. It becomes harder and harder to overview this complex text without something like that. As an alternative to the Wiki Table notation we could use a public social spreadsheed like EditGrid g , ThinkFree g , NumSum g , GoogleSpreadsheets g fridemar 15:18, 13 August 2007 (PDT).
done
Daily
Check Category:Participant to be added to the poll for new participants and add them to the appropriate participants list, clean up their page, and remove the category.
Discussion
A process issue: I see at the “who we are” consensus polling page not so many total participants. Let’s say these relativity few come to consensus on something with the gist of “we are open and all embracing”. But then assume that over years of evolution a lot more folks are using the aboutus site, and now there are ten million, and this larger group then looking at this early stage WhoWeAre definition and saying, “we want to be much more exclusionary and narrowly defined”. The point is the later stage and larger group might have a very different idea of “WhoWeAre” that the relatively few than are currently involved. Will this dynamic get factored into “WhoWeAre”? MartinPfahler
- Martin, I would see this question as something to be addressed in this current WhoWeAre process, and not outside it. If part of WhoWeAre, for you, is that it's dynamic, then that's something to put in during Stage 2, and to make sure gets into the final Stage 3 document. I don't have any answers, which of course consensus polling is such a good idea, so we don't have to rely on some staff member to get it right! Ted Ernst | talk
Discussions related to Stage 2
Discussions related to Stage 2
A Table for Collecting the Views
This is inspired by the Wiki Table [1] of John Stanton, that can be made "3-dimensional", by creating Wiki Pages for each contribution. This helps to hold the overview.
| AboutUs What We Are Discussion
|
| Goal
|
Description
|
Your Bias
|
| Domains
|
Create a page for every domain Website
|
|
| Collaboration
|
Based on what kind of Member Identity
|
|
| TheWikiWay
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fridemar 16:29, 13 August 2007 (PDT)
More Stage 2 Discussion
- Obed: Before we begin to answer the question (WhoWeAre), we need to gather/outline all the ingredients (goals, products, values etc) essential for defining WhoWeAre; so that we have a fair idea of what we are actually trying to answer here.
- Formulation of this initial framework will give direction, order and meaning to the whole process. Hence, it makes sense to do it in stages.
- The next step, I think, should be defining the GoThresholds for Stage 1.
- Asad Butt: We have (at least) two options here - start a single stage consensus poll (somebody coming up with a statement of WhoWeAre and others setting their status to yes or not yet and later modifying the statement unless we have something that satisfies us all), or a multi-stage consensus poll, which involves defining what each stage will contain and then going about it step by step.
- It's hardly that simple though. The first "catch" is: who decides whether it's going to be a single or a multi stage consensus poll? On what basis? Then if it's a multi stage one, who decides what each stage will involve? Do we have to have a consensus poll on this issue first? And the biggest question is: who this "we" is :-)? Any decision made by a single person or even a small group of people, itself is against the spirit of consensus polling. For example in Lahore office, Tanwir, Obed and I seem to be thinking in entirely different directions. Obed thinks there should be a stage consensus poll on this issue; I think there are other questions to be answered before we make a decision, while Tanwir thinks that we don't need to impose a direction on it at all. All we need to do, in his view, is to let the whole process evolve on its own. It might sound a small thing but it might as well turn out to be big enough to undermine the whole consensus poll at a later stage. Besides, the decision, about the mode of consensus poll might have a significant effect on the outcome of the consensus poll itself.
- What we need to discuss here might not be the framework of the consensus poll of WhoWeAre, but of the framework of Consensus Poll itself, in which we have the smallest amount/bare minimum as the basic philosophy of Consensus Polls, and build on it through the consensus poll(s) itself. For example we could have the bare minimum: Consensus Polling involves making decisions on the basis of 90% majority. Then we can define the whole framework of Consensus Polling through a consensus poll itself. For example, we can decide through a consensus poll as to what conditions have to be fulfilled before starting a multi stage/single stage consensus poll. Right now we have a 48 hours done timer, which I might think is too long/too short a time for a done timer. We could have consensus poll on it so we might have the "sanction"/backing of consensus poll itself behind it. Decisions arbitrarily made, however well meant or based on common sense might provoke resentment, at a later stage. In a consensus poll they are even less acceptable.
- The problem here, I think is that since the process is a long one, it'll generate process fatigue among the participants. Secondly, since these are the early days of Consensus Polling, do we actually have enough experience and knowledge of consensus polling to answer all these questions? Will it not be wise to leave all these things as they are and start modifying them when we think they need to be changed and when we have enough experience to answer them? Whatever we choose to do, we should, at least, know what we are doing.
- Wasim: I am in a bit of a fix here. Why? Because I agree with both Asad and Obed on their views. I think that what Obed is suggesting is the logical way to go about it. I also agree with Asad cos I think that the whole process is not practical. Or even if it were practical, it would take ages and ages to get anywhere.
- Personally, I don't understand what either Obed or Asad are proposing. Wasim, if you DO understand them, could you please make a short summary of each proposal? Thank you. TedErnst
Cooking analogy
- Wasim: Here goes *takes a deep breath*
- We had a very spirited discussion here at the Lahore office today; no two people agreed wholly on any of the options that were put forward for consideration. What came out of that discussion, the only thing worthwhile in my opinion was a rather strange analogy which did hit the mark (kind of!)
- Tanwir, Asad, Obed and I decide to cook together. In the same pot. At the same time.
- The problem is, all of us have very different ideas about what we are cooking. We are partial to different ingredients and spices and insist on using them all at the same time. This venture being collaborative, everyone has to agree with the other. Now what would probably come out of that whole exercise would be totally inedible. So yes, we had a good couple of hours cooking but the results of the effort are probably only suited to be served to the trash can!
- A totally different scenario would be to let everyone on the team bring their own food, one dish per person. The catch is, everyone has to sample everything everyone else brings in.
- This rule
doesn't make sense isn't necessary. In real life, people do this kind of eating. Not sure if they do it in Pakistan, but in the US, it's called a "potluck." There is no such rule that every person needs to be able to eat every dish. Some groups I've seen ask each person to bring a sign for their dish that includes all of it's ingredients, so people can then make informed choices about what to eat. TedErnst
- Sounds good? Errrr... the problem is, Obed is allergic to beef; Tanwir hates seafood; I can't stand bland food and Asad pukes at the sight of tomatoes! Big problem!
- Solution? We decide that there will be:
- no beef
- no seafood
- nothing bland
- no tomatoes
- And that pretty much takes care of everything. There are only four of us. So it's not hard to please everyone. To an extent anyway!
- Now take into account the fact that there could potentially be hundreds, even thousands of people who have or want to have a say in defining who we are. How can you go about pleasing everyone? How can you make sure that everyone's input is taken into consideration and USED to achieve this goal?
- The situation we have at present is very similar to half a dozen cooks trying to whip up a meal, probably ending up with something unusable. What Obed and Asad suggested was the second bit of the scenario; to do things in steps keeping in mind EVERYONE's opinions and ideas. The only downside to this is the amount of time we would actually be spending in merely deciding, for example, what everyone is allergic or partial to!
- My suggestion: Let everyone involved (or invited to take part) in the process come up with a bulleted list of things they would like to see incorporated into the definition of who we actually are. Then use consensus polling to narrow down the list to points that the majority agrees upon. Use that as a foundation to define who we are.
- ps.. Tanwir would like everyone to know that he does NOT nor intends to EVER hate seafood! I apologize mate; I just ran outta things to use for this example :P
- pps.. The same goes for Asad and tomatoes!
- I also propose the whole process to be broken down into three distinct steps or stages:
- Step 1: Everyone submits a list of the things they want to see incorporated into the definition. Bullets preferred cos it's easier to take into account one-line statements rather than whole paragraphs.
- Step 2: Invite everyone to take part in a mini-poll per list. Collect all the points everyone agrees upon but do NOT discard the points which no one seems to agree upon. They can be dealt with later. The whole idea behind this particular step is to collect the points/statements that everyone can relate to. I am quite sure that there will be statements that creep up on more lists than one. That makes the task easier, by the way! So we are at least halfway through to reaching our goal (i.e. a working definition of who we are!) with a substantial list of things to go into it.
- Step 3: Compile a list of all the 'offending' points. Tweak them, change them, modify them until a general consensus is reached. Incorporate these into the overall definition.
- optional step: Sit back and bask in the glow of satisfaction that comes from a job well done!
- Any comments, please feel free! Wasim Sajid | :::talk to me, PUH-LEASE!:::
- Obed: Wasim, wouldn't it be more practical to have just one list to which participants can add all the points that they think are essential for the mission statement?
Example:
Our mission statement should include the following:
- Goals
- Ethics/Values
- Products
- etc
|
- Obed, I think it's not practical. Because what if somebody strongly feels that some of the things you have added in your list, shouldn't be there in the definition of WhoWeAre at all? May be I make a list which looks like:
Our mission statement should include the following:
-
Goals
- Ethics/Values
- Products
- Webdirectory
|
What if instead of just striking it, I remove it from the list completely? It's more practical to have different lists so we can choose the items that are the common ones, to which everybody agrees and make a working definition of WhoWeAre, and in the next stage, discuss and have a consensus poll on the conflicting ones. The items we come up with after this stage can then be incorporated in the list. Asad Butt
- My opinion is that all of this is over-planning. We don't need to now decide the process that participants in the WhoWeAre process will use to come to agreement. These suggestions about how to actually go about coming to agreement seem premature, to me. In my opinion, we need to define how the poll is going to work, and then see what emerges. So, I will give my opinion about how we should go ahead, and I'd recommend that each of you either does the same yourself, or edits mine, and at the same time, please edit the above conversation, taking out the points that you've decided are no longer relevant, if any. TedErnst
- Wasim,
I thought this this...
- "My suggestion: Let everyone involved (or invited to take part) in the process come up with a bulleted list of things they would like to see incorporated into the definition of who we actually are. Then use consensus polling to narrow down the list to points that the majority agrees upon. Use that as a foundation to define who we are." ~Wasim
- ...
was already happening has already seen good progress on the WhoWeAre consensus poll page. I'm incredibly confused. Wally
Useful Links
