On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Greg Dekoenigsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, David Farning wrote: > > Greg, >> >> Thanks for taking the time to put together the well though out list of >> concrete improvement that we can make to the wiki. >> > > Thanks David. But to be clear here: I'm not fundamentally concerned with > wiki improvements, per se. I'm talking about team improvements. If these > teams are, in fact, teams, that how do we ensure that we are treating them > as such? A set of wiki pages is not a team. A team is a group of people > working together to accomplish a goal. Each team's wiki pages should be a > reflection of that reality. > Greg's assessment of the situation is correct, as it often is correct. The wiki is just community building tool, not the community itself. > First the credit. I idea of teams came from SJ while we were discussing >> the relationship between the SL and OLPC wikis. I was talking about the >> _best_ place to host different content. SJ suggested that their was not a >> best place. Rather, he stated a lot of content fits in both places, just >> from different _perspectives_. >> >> Hence, the idea of teams or sub communities tackling the Sugar Labs >> mission from different angles. >> >> On stubs. A wiki is an interesting collaborative tool. The wiki's value >> is ultimately as a source of information for readers. Here we get to the >> tricky part. The wiki is of little value as a source of information until >> it contains substantive, well written, and easily located articles. But, >> nobody wants to go through the bother of researching, writing, and >> organizing the content until they feel there work would have an impact on >> future readers. >> >> Several community theorists advocate 'worse is better' as a starting point >> for generating initial content. As long as a community starts with >> 'something', that something can gradually improve until it becomes something >> useful. >> >> FWIW, when we help the initial wiki barn raising about 6 months ago, we >> were averaging (very roughly) about 2 wiki contributions per day. Now we >> are up to about 10 per day. If we can stay on that rate of increase, we >> will exceed 40 contributions per day in another 6 months. >> > > I do not dispute any of this. To be clear: my comments are almost > completely orthogonal to the wiki. The wiki is merely a tool. > > To be as simple and as blunt as possible: a team that does not have a > leader, a task list with owners, and a regular meeting time, might as well > not even exist. We should either bring all of our teams up to speed, or do > away with them. My $0.02. > > > FWIW, I would like to take over the marketing team, roll events into it, > and start driving it -- which I will start to do next week. Lest anyone > think I'm just trying to make work for other people. ;) > Great. Marketing is pretty weak. > > --g
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
