|
Please see my notes in line. On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:
I think there may be some implicit assumptions in what Priss is describing that I'm saying don't hold true for small workgroups.So this is where I'm a bit confused when we talk about small workgroups. There seems to be two types of small workgroups and my belief is if we focus on one, we may be able to satisfy the other as well. What I am hearing from you sounds more like we need to satisfy one and putting in a layer of security will make it too complicated for the other group to work effectively. Here are my definition of the two types of small workgroups: 1. Small professional organizations including schools, fraternities, home owners association, docent co-ordination for galleries etc. have policies and structure 2. Informal gatherings (such as book clubs, household scheduling, study groups etc.) which do not have a policy/structure, but usually have an organizer to set up the meetings. The roles may switch and it's pretty fluid, but someone usually takes the lead for organizing. Please chime in if you don't think I am correctly identifying the small workgroups. Now if it's a staging issue in product planning and we're making the conscious decision to only target #2 first, then perhaps we had not thought through about our target user for Scooby 0.3. I'm not really sure that the trust is really that different from small organizations vs. large ones. You can have a small group that is formal and a large group that is informal. A groups dynamics may not be entirely related to size.
So in the two workgroups I
described: The professional organization chooses the software its
members would use to collaborate. The members would be obligated to use
this software. In an informal gathering, the group may collectively
decide to use the collaboration software. Though it still takes a
person to lead and organize the gathering and push the other members to
use the software. In the book club interview we did, one used evite to
organize and the other used e-mail. Whatever form of communication the
organizer chooses, the members will generally follow.
Maybe there are some misunderstanding in language that I used. Let me try to clarify. So here is a question I have about the ecosystem: If a small company were to use Chandler/Scooby/Cosmo without the OSAF hosted service, is it still considered part of the ecosystem? I understand that in the informal gatherings, Calendars without IT support is important for adoption. I don't think I said there needs to be a formal dedicated IT department.There are however care taking tasks that are done with any computer software. If a small workgroup does not choose to use the OSAF hosted solution, then someone in the workgroup would need to set up the Cosmo server. If so, then Cosmo should be easy enough for small workgroups to set up on their own. I think I defined this to 'Informal gatherings' work group. Also part of the 'Informal gatherings' work group. I disagree. If people in the workgroup have a stake in the outcome of a collaboration, it may change the groups dynamics. So clarifying what you're saying about collaborating on a single item. This is an example of where ACLs can help focus the collaboration by eliminating clutter and distractions in shared collection. Yes. It would most likely be a contract IT support or in many cases, someone in the group plays the role of technology support. In larger organizations, they can afford to have specialists. A person to set up e-mail, another person to set up development tools, etc. I don't think this is an all or nothing decision. You don't have to have a super heavy handed approach with security. There are some social rules that structure interactions. ACLs can help provide structure for a collaboration. Just because you have the ability to add that layer of security doesn't mean you have to use it. -Priscilla |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
