Projects:WhoWeAre
Contents
Who
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?
Project Tasks
- TedErnst, Obed Suhail, Wasim Sajid, Asad Butt will spend one hour each on 1st and 2nd August and give suggestions on the consensus polling process for WhoWeAre. Click here to join the 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
- 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. 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!:::
consensus polling & WhoWeAre
Wally Wilson - The problem I immediately see when reading this page is that the entire concept of WhoWeAre is being weighed down by artificially-imposed frameworks that have yet to actually be adopted by the majority (i.e., consensus polling). What I see is that the subject of "consensus polling" must first be resolved and accepted by everyone before WhoWeAre ever has a chance of succeeding.
I was under the distinct impression that WhoWeAre, as a consensus poll, was already underway (still in its infancy, yet still underway). Now I find out that it was not, is not, and has not been underway at all. This is being made far too complicated. Artificial "process" versus natural "process?"
- Wally, I'm hearing that consensus polling is too confusing, yes? Before I answer, I want to make sure I'm understanding. If "confusing" doesn't cover it, feel free to correct me. Thanks! TedErnst
- Ted, I don't think that consensus polling is too confusing (personally). I do see repeating signs that consensus polling is being over-complicated/overthought. I'm being confused by the lack of a common page from whence everyone works under the process of consensus polling...it's a fairly natural process, and it falls apart fairly quickly when overdone.
- Please don't get me wrong -- if folks want to wax philosophic about consensus polling (defining it, improving upon it, etc.) on AboutUs they should feel free to do so. What I am wondering aloud about here is how and where that discussion should take place... Are consensus polling and WhoWeAre going to be resolved together, or separately? Right now, it appears that they are being combined, and that confuses me. Wally Wilson
- Wally, could you say more about this? I'm not sure I understand it. TedErnst
now
-
We need to create a new "Consensus Poll pre-notice" or something, that says we've not yet started, and begins the conversation about GoThresholds. -
link to this page from the poll page - 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
-
what about transcluding this page into WhoWeAre so everyone can also see the meta? - sharing strategies for keeping up with what's happening, for example watchlist including email on edit
- What constitutes an "arbitrary decision?" Who decides what is "arbitrary," and what is not "arbitrary?"
- What does this refer to? TedErnst
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
done
All active members invited
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.