- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:22:16 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Chris Messina" <messina@google.com>
- Cc: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>, "olivier Thereaux" <olivier@thereaux.net>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "public-vision-newstd@w3.org" <public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
> To follow up on this comment... > > Longer term (and I say longer term because not enough software supports > ActivityStreams yet) it would be ideal if we could just synthesize > activity > streams from a number of sources, such that people could use whatever tool > makes sense to the them and the forum homepage would just be a newsfeed of > recent activity...! We experimented with this in the Social Web XG, see the "buzzword" web-page here: http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/social/planet/. The main issue is there's too much on the newsfeed, there needs to be some kind of rating mechanism or editor to separate, say substantial wiki edits from minor wiki edits, and of course ambiguous hashtags. > > In other words, some of us may choose to collaborate on a wiki, others on > standalone blog posts, still others using Twitter or Buzz and coordinating > with a hashtag. Regardless of the tool being used, it would be the > newsfeed > that could bring all this data together from disparate sources. > > > There are a few services — including Status.net/Identica — that consume > ActivityStreams, so if there were enough interested parties with time to > contribute, we could turn identica into a very valuable coordination tool. > This is an excellent idea! The W3C has been shopping around to get "social features" integrated into its standardization process and website in general. Perhaps we could try to integrate status.net into W3C's website, and offer a identi.ca activitystream-based integration as one of the things we offer community groups in addition to a wiki, blog, mailing-list and git/svn/cvs. The question I is what resources can be offered to community groups that allow them to self-organize and don't place an extra-ordinary burden on W3C Systems Team. > Chris > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Chris Messina <messina@google.com> wrote: > >> You might also want to consider the roles that you hope people will >> assume in this phase of the process and then provide tools to serve >> people who take on different roles. >> >> Though some people may decide to play many or multiple roles, making >> it easier to self-identify how or what one wishes to contribute might >> help get this going. >> >> Basic roles might include: >> >> • researcher >> • coordinator >> • designer >> • developer >> • professional liaison >> • recorder or documenter >> • writer >> • creative >> • moderator >> • leader >> As regards roles, yes, usually the W3C has a fairly restricted number of well-known roles in Working Groups, i.e. chair (moderator/co-ordinator), editor (co-ordiantor/writer), author (writer), scribe (recorder), and at least three interoperable implemetnations (i.e. developer). Maybe it's time to broaden this basis and make ti a bit more explict if we are going to go down the community group route... >> ...and so on. >> >> In the beginning it may also make sense to keep the number if roles >> served to a minimum and then expand over time. >> >> Starting off the conversation with a discussion of tools is a great >> way to collect personal opinions and gain insight into different >> approaches to achieving productivity, but until you spell out what >> activities are pertinent to the success of the group, it is premature >> to determine which tools the participants should (or will be willing >> to) use. >> >> Chris >> >> On Thursday, August 19, 2010, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >> >> On Aug 19, 2010, at 14:13 , olivier Thereaux wrote: >> >>> First, mailing-lists are very alien to a lot of people outside w3c, >> and >> >>> not the most comfortable form of online communication for many >> >> >> >> That is true, but are they alien to a large part of the crowd that >> we're >> >> looking to talk to? >> >> >> >> That being said, I've always thought that mail archives that could be >> >> writable for people who are more comfortable in forum-like >> discussions >> >> would be a good idea (but I don't know that we have that handy). >> >> >> >>> Second… I've tried using wikis for idea sharing, it doesn't work >> very >> >>> well. Putting aside the fact that (again) wikis are not familiar to >> all, >> >>> I have found that a wiki exhibits a number of issues when it comes >> to >> >>> being an idea/innovation space. The main issue, I think, is that >> wikis >> >>> seem to work best to document something that is going on elsewhere: >> >>> news, knowledge, a software project... But when it comes to using a >> wiki >> >>> as the innovation space itself, it doesn't provide the right social >> >>> dynamics: no sense of "ownership" of the concepts, no guidance, >> comments >> >>> tend to be put on a "talk" page, the difficulty of knowing where >> >>> activity happens, and I won't get started on the thorny dynamics of >> >>> editing the text of someone elses's idea. >> >> >> >> I agree, wikis work when people can fall into editor/corrector >> categories >> >> but they don't work for exchange and creation. >> >> >> >>> Although I can't of course suggest the perfect alternative, I would >> >>> suggest considering this one, flawed but IMHO showing more >> potential. >> >>> Start a blog where anyone can register and where the default role >> for >> >>> user is that of author. >> >>> >> >>> Why? >> >>> * The blog (or news, or social-network-status) and comment paradigm >> is >> >>> comfortable to most of our contemporaries >> >>> >> >>> * People can take as long as they want to let their ideas mature >> >>> (draft), show them to the world (publish), discuss (comments, >> >>> trackbacks, etc) and make their idea evolve (re-edit) based on the >> >>> feedback while retaining some control and pride of "ownership" >> >>> >> >>> * The popular (and thus familiar) wordpress software allows you to >> do >> >>> just this, and is ridiculously easy to install and manage. >> >>> >> >>> * Barrier to entry would be minimal >> >>> >> >>> * A blog could also be used for more "guided" challenge-response >> topics. >> >>> This I find is how a lot of successful (or budding) open innovation >> >>> networks have chosen to work. See for example: >> >>> http://www2.innocentive.com/ http://openideo.com/ or >> >>> http://frogmob.frogdesign.com/ >> >> >> >> I like the idea. Blogs can work as a community of discussion. +1 >> > >> > OK, I'm seeing: >> > >> > 1) Mailing list >> > 2) hashtag >> > 3) blog >> > 4) Wiki (I know,I know, but sometimes it does help to be able to >> > collectively edit documents, like draft charters or specs). >> > >> > Again, this can be done I assume more or less right after the task >> force >> > phone call assuming we get consensus on the name/hashtag and whatnot >> > during the call. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Robin Berjon >> >> robineko — hired gun, higher standards >> >> http://robineko.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Chris Messina >> Open Web Advocate, Google >> >> Web: http://factoryjoe.com >> Phone: 412.225.1051 >> Follow me on Buzz: >> http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina< >> http://google.com/profiles/chrismessina> >> >> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina >> >> This email is: [ ] shareable [ ] ask first [X] private >> > > > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate, Google > > Web: http://factoryjoe.com > Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina > ....or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > > This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private >
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2010 14:22:21 UTC