[Mmwg] can we intent to create a structured process?

[David Allen]

Hopefully this is good stimulation.

At 4:50 PM +0100 1/22/06, <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:
>... I can only suggest again that we begin with agreeing on a work 
>plan/'roadmap' in which we establish a clear framework (including a 
>timeline) for (1) collecting/identifying the topics to be discussed, 
>then (2) have people post their positions ("thought through" text), 
>(3) hold (separate) discussions on the topics, (4) prepare 
>individual topic statements, (5) which are then unified in one 
>document and discussed by all.
>
>... The current practice makes the discussions inaccessible to 
>newcomers and (in fact) limits active participation to the circle of 
>people who have the time to follow all mails.
>
>That the problem with participation is not raised more often (in my 
>view) only shows that we have created an atmosphere where people do 
>not feel comfortable speaking up.
>
>My 2 cents
>Max

My cents, two, is that we have to go through a formative period - the 
main ideas and possibilities have to be got out.  Then _we_ can 
differentiate a bit - work on the main candidate pieces, piece by 
piece.  We also have a much tighter time frame than we might 
otherwise have chosen.

My sense - again - is that certain elements have begun to come into 
focus.  On these there has been active back-and-forth, contributing, 
with at least some hint of closure.  Other pieces are clearly 
hotspots, but without yet a clear way through and so might benefit 
from more 'plenary' discussion.  Yet other parts still need formative 
work.  Call these categories 1, 2, and 3.

Category 1, if there yet, would be candidate for wiki work. 
Categories 2 and 3 need the list.

As to (an abbreviated) time frame, we can see that others will bring 
proposals - at least we can hope so, for broad stimulation.  For 
instance, Jovan and the Diplo work will finish the Sunday, Feb 12, 
before the Geneva meeting's Wednesday or Thursday start.  So, when 
should we aim to wrap, and with what interim schedule?

Let me try my hand, on a bit of what might be in categories.  Please 
come back.  We'll need subtractions and additions, amendments, as you 
feel warranted.  Or indeed, otherwise, than this approach.

For the moment I'll put just one or two items in a category.  You may 
have more, or less.  And you may prefer to break some of mine into 
smaller parts.

[For me anyway, this points out one of our main challenges - to see 
and work both on whole and on part, at the same time.  Not easy - but 
the better we do, the better we come out.]

--> Important re category 1, draft text for wiki work, there is a 
question, rather than a candidate-for-sure.

category 1 - (possible) candidate for draft text in wiki work

Are we ready for the below?  Without the shortened time frame, I 
probably would choose more list dialog, before moving the main 
structural choice to trial text.  You may feel that is premature in 
any event.

Again, the issue I see:  being able to work on both whole and part - 
a choice of main structure has the effect of channeling and 
delimiting other directional choices.

Here I also note McTim's pointer to useful established practice, in 
one arena, as an evidentiary base for data and learning - McTim's bar 
to clear.

so finally, a possible candidate for category 1?
- A two-level structure, plenary and leadership (where WGs add a key 
sub-level to plenary).  There remains at least one alternative view 
also.  If those feel strongly enough, then they might work separately 
on such an alternate.  Or they might decide to contribute to the 
two-level work.

Whether / how strongly we may be split, on this, probably tells 
whether this is ready.

category 2 - may need more plenary (our plenary) back-and-forth

- y'all come, or accreditation?
- individual or organization?

category 3 - dimensions and options need (more) formative discussion

- how plenary selects leadership (after the bootstrap)
- treatment for A&S / A&T

Nothing is more important here, IMHO, than an inviting atmosphere for 
posts.  I think that rests with each of us, in a pleasant welcome to 
disagreeing views.

[Yes, finding enough time to follow list posts is a challenge (for 
anyone, me too of course).  My cents?  Part of the cost of effective 
online collaboration probably is to 'make that time' - eg, 
concentrate on the dialogs where one is going to make a contribution. 
Following dialog is of the essence IMO and - by itself - separate 
from quality of the atmosphere.]

Again - subtractions and additions, amendments?

David