RE: F2F Provocation Statements

Jose & John, I don't think we should assume that participants will be
present for two full days.  Thus, it seems to me that each session should
begin with a relatively short period of brainstorming to identify the
provocations, leading into a longer period for discussion of the particular
topic.  The opening session might provide an overview of them, as implied in
the current draft of the agenda.  However, if all of the provocations are
front-loaded in the agenda, folks who can only be present for that part of
the agenda won't have the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
Conversely, it is only reasonable to expect that: a) additional provocations
will arise during discussion of each topic, and b) if folks are unable to
participate in the full agenda on both days, they are more likely to attend
if they know they will be able to contribute both to the provocations as
well as the discussion of the particular topic(s) of greatest interest to
them.

Owen

-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 9:48 AM
To: Owen Ambur
Cc: eGov IG; John Sheridan
Subject: Re: F2F Provocation Statements

Owen, thanks much for getting this started.

Although it was John who proposed it, I was actioned to remind the  
list. I hope I got it right.

The plan is to propose topics to have a provocation/reflection/action  
approach:
1) dedicate morning(s) to "provoke" with burning issues
2) analyze how those could be addressed
3) come up with actions that the Group should take and where it would  
be of most help

I'm not sure if we should stick to the proposed structure around  
topics or if it would be better to do the provocation part in the  
first morning/afternoon on all topics, then move from there.

-- Jose

ps: this closes ACTION-45


El 18/02/2009, a las 17:23, Owen Ambur escribió:
> Per discussion on the telecon this morning, I added a few  
> provocation statements to the draft agenda
athttp://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/F2F2
>
> BTW, the deadline for proposed additions to the FEA TRM was January  
> 31 -- http://et.gov/stage4.htm -- meaning that it may not be  
> possible to incorporate additional changes until next year … which  
> in turn means the TRM is virtually guaranteed to become irrelevant  
> due to being out-dated.
>
> Owen Ambur
> Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP
> Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
> Member, AIIM iECM Committee
> Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG
> Communications/Membership Director, FIRM Board
> Former Project Manager, ET.gov
> Brief Bio
>

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 16:37:25 UTC