TT
> Tony, as Ste W. commented a primary issue is there are not so many of "us" > here. > I am aware of that, and that why we can curate things with the correct solution. > Re the 45 K, I'd love to know more. But as a number itself its a hint more > than a depiction of significance? > >> >> The point is I was key in the design, promotion and building of Yammer from 1,200 people to an extent everyone wanted to and used it across a large organisation, with all its special interest groups etc... We had self moderation, an a key value in the "All Company" thread where you could mention any post to for a broad audience, or in a group here people have nominated and interest, or you can just review a group that has had activity. Replies are directed to an Inbox, not emails. Let us put it another way it seemed to me it was an indel platform with a couple of exceptions based on my extencive knowledge. I only wanted a few to consider it. SO I wonder how we can expect anything different > >> BUT GG for direct discussion is excellent. Threading is relevant. > Not really, I can't just like something , or follow an edition, a plugin or an author > BUT history is quickly lost. > With email threads yes. > > There is a fundamental tension between "now" & "then". Now is fine, then > is quickly gone. > > >> ... The key features in my mind about yammer I would like to see for this >> community, is the ability to review all activity, but focus on special >> interest groups ... >> > > Its a good aim. The issue with that, I think, is (1) not enough people & > (2), likely most important, it looks like it would fragment things. > I do not think the number of people importiant, for some years I and my partner had a private yammer group, at least not on Yammer, but some platforms should scale well. > > I also think worth noting the great recent collaboration developing the > e-book version. That was NOT an open process. 3 developers linked up and > just did it no one knew about till completed. Worked well. > > Overall I'd guess that what is needed is really a better ONE group here > but with decent past history tracking?? > This would happen much more in curated groups/projects. and would continue indefinitely with new people taking up ongoing maintenance in the future > Now, regarding the OP, I'm still not sure its actually solvable under any > circumstances. > It was a limited pragmatic issue of how to isolate "innovations in TW edit > mechanisms" for a few recent weeks. > This is why I proposed a collaborative blog, see To blog or not blog. > > So far that specific remains both elusive and, I think, a pertinent use > case of lack of access to what you need. Is it solvable? Not sure. > > I am confident but we don't have "analysis paralysis" nor "death by a thousand committees", we just need a small cohort to demonstrate and populate curated content on a system which remains interactive and cross posted with GG so no data is orphaned, this is as easy as providing links to topics and posts, and GG pointing to a larger discussion on the solutions we trial. Another problem we have is it is really hard to determine the degree of expertise our members have, and trust each other that the effort will be a time saver and productivity enhancement after the initial investment. Ie we find it hard to mount a small cohort prepared to give something a go. Regards Tony -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a7c89916-fe31-4540-adcf-e73f5d66bc8b%40googlegroups.com.
