Thoughts about WE Workgroups / Working groups
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Wayne Mackintosh
May 31, 2009, 12:22:14 AM5/31/09
to WikiEducator
Hi everyone --
The concept of instituting work groups in WE has been around for some time, as suggested, for example by User:Leutha, User:Kakamora and others. However, we don't have processes or guidelines to assist WikiEducator's in forming groups that will contribute towards the collective objective of improving how we work.
When WikiEducator was much smaller -- it was relatively easy to post a query, idea or suggestion on the main list and take a collective decision. With considerable growth since January 2008 our project needs are growing rapidly and I wonder whether WE should consider formalising a work group approach?
In other words, should we set up a work group to develop guidelines on implementing work groups to be tabled at the first WCC meeting?
We already have a few work groups that have formed organically.
Existing work groups:
Recent posts on the list by Nellie, Ben, Peter, Brent, Randy and Patricia on the topic of communication alternatives in WE, ning.com etc suggest that the work group model is possibly a good vehicle for researching these kinds of questions and proposing alternatives for consideration.
Two questions:
Wayne
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
The concept of instituting work groups in WE has been around for some time, as suggested, for example by User:Leutha, User:Kakamora and others. However, we don't have processes or guidelines to assist WikiEducator's in forming groups that will contribute towards the collective objective of improving how we work.
When WikiEducator was much smaller -- it was relatively easy to post a query, idea or suggestion on the main list and take a collective decision. With considerable growth since January 2008 our project needs are growing rapidly and I wonder whether WE should consider formalising a work group approach?
In other words, should we set up a work group to develop guidelines on implementing work groups to be tabled at the first WCC meeting?
We already have a few work groups that have formed organically.
Existing work groups:
- A usability work group iniated by User:Kakamora -- good ideas and intentions, but hasn't gone further (see: http://www.wikieducator.org/Usability_Working_Group )
- A work group to talk about Learning Design (Pedagogical templates) -- (see: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Learning_design )
- Another work group is looking at the development of an OER Policy Briefing intended to assist with advocacy of OER among policy makers -- (see: http://wikieducator.org/OER_Brief_for_policy_makers )
Recent posts on the list by Nellie, Ben, Peter, Brent, Randy and Patricia on the topic of communication alternatives in WE, ning.com etc suggest that the work group model is possibly a good vehicle for researching these kinds of questions and proposing alternatives for consideration.
Two questions:
- Should WE implement a work group approach?
- If so, should we initiate a work group to develop a draft set of guidelines on work groups, utimately leading to a policy on work groups for consideration by the WCC for approval.
Wayne
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org
Wayne Mackintosh
May 31, 2009, 9:27:46 PM5/31/09
to WikiEducator
Hi everyone,
Pending the outcome of community ideas and suggestions for setting up
a workgroup to develop guidelines for WE workgroups, I've been jotting
down a few tentative thoughts ....
See: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:WikiEducator_Workgroups
Currently we don't have clear guidelines for community members to make
suggestions for changes, new ideas etc for project-wide
implementation. Seems to me that a work group approach is a good way
to go because:
* It respects the freedom of all WIkiEducators to propose changes for
improving our project and does not rely on some predetermined
community status -- thus empowering all our members to contribute to
community innovation.
* Ensures open and transparent development and discussion of the ideas
* Encourages research and reflection in solving the challenge
Be interested to hear your thoughts and suggestions.
Cheers
Wayne
On May 31, 4:22 pm, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> *
>
> - A usability work group iniated by User:Kakamora -- good ideas and
> - A work group to talk about Learning Design (Pedagogical templates) --
> (see:http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Learning_design)
> - Another work group is looking at the development of an OER Policy
> 2. If so, should we initiate a work group to develop a draft set of
Pending the outcome of community ideas and suggestions for setting up
a workgroup to develop guidelines for WE workgroups, I've been jotting
down a few tentative thoughts ....
See: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:WikiEducator_Workgroups
Currently we don't have clear guidelines for community members to make
suggestions for changes, new ideas etc for project-wide
implementation. Seems to me that a work group approach is a good way
to go because:
* It respects the freedom of all WIkiEducators to propose changes for
improving our project and does not rely on some predetermined
community status -- thus empowering all our members to contribute to
community innovation.
* Ensures open and transparent development and discussion of the ideas
* Encourages research and reflection in solving the challenge
Be interested to hear your thoughts and suggestions.
Cheers
Wayne
On May 31, 4:22 pm, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everyone --
>
> The concept of instituting work groups in WE has been around for some time,
> as suggested, for example by User:Leutha, User:Kakamora and others.
> However, we don't have processes or guidelines to assist WikiEducator's in
> forming groups that will contribute towards the collective objective of
> improving how we work.
>
> When WikiEducator was much smaller -- it was relatively easy to post a
> query, idea or suggestion on the main list and take a collective decision.
> With considerable growth since January 2008 our project needs are growing
> rapidly and I wonder whether WE should consider formalising a work group
> approach?
>
> In other words, should we set up a work group to develop guidelines on
> implementing work groups to be tabled at the first WCC meeting?
>
> We already have a few work groups that have formed organically.
>
> *Existing work groups:
>
> The concept of instituting work groups in WE has been around for some time,
> as suggested, for example by User:Leutha, User:Kakamora and others.
> However, we don't have processes or guidelines to assist WikiEducator's in
> forming groups that will contribute towards the collective objective of
> improving how we work.
>
> When WikiEducator was much smaller -- it was relatively easy to post a
> query, idea or suggestion on the main list and take a collective decision.
> With considerable growth since January 2008 our project needs are growing
> rapidly and I wonder whether WE should consider formalising a work group
> approach?
>
> In other words, should we set up a work group to develop guidelines on
> implementing work groups to be tabled at the first WCC meeting?
>
> We already have a few work groups that have formed organically.
>
> *
>
> - A usability work group iniated by User:Kakamora -- good ideas and
> - A work group to talk about Learning Design (Pedagogical templates) --
> (see:http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Learning_design)
> - Another work group is looking at the development of an OER Policy
> Briefing intended to assist with advocacy of OER among policy makers --
> (see:http://wikieducator.org/OER_Brief_for_policy_makers)
>
> Are there any other "workgroups" which I may have missed? Peter wouldn't
> the volunteer group who have signed up for helping out on the Quality
> Assurance and Review framework also constitute a workgroup of sorts? (See:http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review).
>
> Recent posts on the list by Nellie, Ben, Peter, Brent, Randy and Patricia on
> the topic of communication alternatives in WE, ning.com etc suggest that the
> work group model is possibly a good vehicle for researching these kinds of
> questions and proposing alternatives for consideration.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Should WE implement a work group approach?
> (see:http://wikieducator.org/OER_Brief_for_policy_makers)
>
> Are there any other "workgroups" which I may have missed? Peter wouldn't
> the volunteer group who have signed up for helping out on the Quality
> Assurance and Review framework also constitute a workgroup of sorts? (See:http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review).
>
> Recent posts on the list by Nellie, Ben, Peter, Brent, Randy and Patricia on
> the topic of communication alternatives in WE, ning.com etc suggest that the
> work group model is possibly a good vehicle for researching these kinds of
> questions and proposing alternatives for consideration.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 2. If so, should we initiate a work group to develop a draft set of
Alison Snieckus
May 31, 2009, 9:44:16 PM5/31/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Good idea! Workgroups are clearly an important structure in WE, whether overtly named or not. I agree we should spend some time thinking about and collaborating on what we can do to encourage workgroups and help them thrive -- a workgroup to define workgroups. I'll leave my comments on the new workgroup page.
Alison
http://wikieducator.org/User:ASnieckus
Alison
http://wikieducator.org/User:ASnieckus
simonfj
May 31, 2009, 9:51:52 PM5/31/09
to WikiEducator
I'm all in favour of this one. Could we have a WG to set up WGs, which
might include a WG" for 'Tools and Network'?
and could we include this WG in the conversation?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communication_Projects_Group
So far we have, let's see, a wiki as our mainstay, a google group and
a bit of kaltura on the side.
Our cousins prefer the old ways of email lists and IRC.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
I would have thought the banished wife's channels of communication
would appeal to WE inhabitants. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium
(under 'Communicate')
Now I'm not too old to get into a brand like ning (and its tools) and
the old ways are just too exhausting (with their high noise to signal
ratio).
But regardless of our preference for web based tools, could we give
some thought to the 'real time' stuff? One of the sticking points for
global communities, in coming up with useful I, and C,Technology is
getting their hands on some really useful real time tools, like Skype
or http://www.accessgrid.org/home and making them part of a cross
domainal web space.
I have suggested to Brianna (in the Oz wikipedia chapter) that we
might also try to link up between BA and other spots around the globe
for Wikimania this year. It's probably a good time as many ISPs and
NREN's are trying to get their Quality of Service up, so they can
start kicking telcos' toll charges out of the way. NB There are about
20,000 global students at my alma mater ( http://sae.edu/en-gb/news_overview/726/News
) who are just starting to use this kind of tool.
http://www.hobnox.com/index.1018.en.html?blg[project_handle]=livetool-project
They could use a mature community like WE to get their chops up.
Their community's toolkit isn't very good, (it's newish) but they can
move fast, especially if you can spaek german.
Lastly, this may be of some use. http://www.internet2.edu/wg/
regards, simon
On May 31, 2:22 pm, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> *
>
> - A usability work group iniated by User:Kakamora -- good ideas and
> - A work group to talk about Learning Design (Pedagogical templates) --
> (see:http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Learning_design)
> - Another work group is looking at the development of an OER Policy
> 2. If so, should we initiate a work group to develop a draft set of
might include a WG" for 'Tools and Network'?
and could we include this WG in the conversation?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communication_Projects_Group
So far we have, let's see, a wiki as our mainstay, a google group and
a bit of kaltura on the side.
Our cousins prefer the old ways of email lists and IRC.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
I would have thought the banished wife's channels of communication
would appeal to WE inhabitants. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium
(under 'Communicate')
Now I'm not too old to get into a brand like ning (and its tools) and
the old ways are just too exhausting (with their high noise to signal
ratio).
But regardless of our preference for web based tools, could we give
some thought to the 'real time' stuff? One of the sticking points for
global communities, in coming up with useful I, and C,Technology is
getting their hands on some really useful real time tools, like Skype
or http://www.accessgrid.org/home and making them part of a cross
domainal web space.
I have suggested to Brianna (in the Oz wikipedia chapter) that we
might also try to link up between BA and other spots around the globe
for Wikimania this year. It's probably a good time as many ISPs and
NREN's are trying to get their Quality of Service up, so they can
start kicking telcos' toll charges out of the way. NB There are about
20,000 global students at my alma mater ( http://sae.edu/en-gb/news_overview/726/News
) who are just starting to use this kind of tool.
http://www.hobnox.com/index.1018.en.html?blg[project_handle]=livetool-project
They could use a mature community like WE to get their chops up.
Their community's toolkit isn't very good, (it's newish) but they can
move fast, especially if you can spaek german.
Lastly, this may be of some use. http://www.internet2.edu/wg/
regards, simon
On May 31, 2:22 pm, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everyone --
>
> The concept of instituting work groups in WE has been around for some time,
> as suggested, for example by User:Leutha, User:Kakamora and others.
> However, we don't have processes or guidelines to assist WikiEducator's in
> forming groups that will contribute towards the collective objective of
> improving how we work.
>
> When WikiEducator was much smaller -- it was relatively easy to post a
> query, idea or suggestion on the main list and take a collective decision.
> With considerable growth since January 2008 our project needs are growing
> rapidly and I wonder whether WE should consider formalising a work group
> approach?
>
> In other words, should we set up a work group to develop guidelines on
> implementing work groups to be tabled at the first WCC meeting?
>
> We already have a few work groups that have formed organically.
>
> *Existing work groups:
>
> The concept of instituting work groups in WE has been around for some time,
> as suggested, for example by User:Leutha, User:Kakamora and others.
> However, we don't have processes or guidelines to assist WikiEducator's in
> forming groups that will contribute towards the collective objective of
> improving how we work.
>
> When WikiEducator was much smaller -- it was relatively easy to post a
> query, idea or suggestion on the main list and take a collective decision.
> With considerable growth since January 2008 our project needs are growing
> rapidly and I wonder whether WE should consider formalising a work group
> approach?
>
> In other words, should we set up a work group to develop guidelines on
> implementing work groups to be tabled at the first WCC meeting?
>
> We already have a few work groups that have formed organically.
>
> *
>
> - A usability work group iniated by User:Kakamora -- good ideas and
> - A work group to talk about Learning Design (Pedagogical templates) --
> (see:http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Learning_design)
> - Another work group is looking at the development of an OER Policy
> Briefing intended to assist with advocacy of OER among policy makers --
> (see:http://wikieducator.org/OER_Brief_for_policy_makers)
>
> Are there any other "workgroups" which I may have missed? Peter wouldn't
> the volunteer group who have signed up for helping out on the Quality
> Assurance and Review framework also constitute a workgroup of sorts? (See:http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review).
>
> Recent posts on the list by Nellie, Ben, Peter, Brent, Randy and Patricia on
> the topic of communication alternatives in WE, ning.com etc suggest that the
> work group model is possibly a good vehicle for researching these kinds of
> questions and proposing alternatives for consideration.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Should WE implement a work group approach?
> (see:http://wikieducator.org/OER_Brief_for_policy_makers)
>
> Are there any other "workgroups" which I may have missed? Peter wouldn't
> the volunteer group who have signed up for helping out on the Quality
> Assurance and Review framework also constitute a workgroup of sorts? (See:http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_and_Review).
>
> Recent posts on the list by Nellie, Ben, Peter, Brent, Randy and Patricia on
> the topic of communication alternatives in WE, ning.com etc suggest that the
> work group model is possibly a good vehicle for researching these kinds of
> questions and proposing alternatives for consideration.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 2. If so, should we initiate a work group to develop a draft set of
Patricia Schlicht
May 31, 2009, 10:04:37 PM5/31/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
I have added two suggestions under "thoughts" that came to mind when reading the Working Group page on the Wiki. I agree with your suggestions, Wayne. Simon brought out what I have mentioned as well on that page.
Cheers,
Patricia
Cheers,
Patricia
Wayne Mackintosh
Jun 1, 2009, 2:09:28 AM6/1/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Hi Simon --
Responses in text below ...
Absolutely -- we're setting up a WG to set up processes and support mechanisms for WG's -- with your skills and experience, I'm hoping that you'll put up your hand in joining this WG to helps us get this process right.
See: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:WikiEducator_Workgroups
Hey -- with recent post in the WE list we realised that we need to have a WG to address WE's needs for communication, but realised we didn't have an appropriate policy or mechnasim to respond to the challenge :)
Would be great if you could join our WG to set up WG policies and procedures so that we can tackle our communication challenges using our WG polcies (to be drafted). This is a little confusing -- but hope that you get the drift :-).
Responses in text below ...
2009/6/1 simonfj <sim...@cols.com.au>
I'm all in favour of this one. Could we have a WG to set up WGs, which
might include a WG" for 'Tools and Network'?
and could we include this WG in the conversation?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communication_Projects_Group
Absolutely -- we're setting up a WG to set up processes and support mechanisms for WG's -- with your skills and experience, I'm hoping that you'll put up your hand in joining this WG to helps us get this process right.
See: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:WikiEducator_Workgroups
So far we have, let's see, a wiki as our mainstay, a google group and
a bit of kaltura on the side.
Our cousins prefer the old ways of email lists and IRC.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
I would have thought the banished wife's channels of communication
would appeal to WE inhabitants. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium
(under 'Communicate')
Now I'm not too old to get into a brand like ning (and its tools) and
the old ways are just too exhausting (with their high noise to signal
ratio).
But regardless of our preference for web based tools, could we give
some thought to the 'real time' stuff? One of the sticking points for
global communities, in coming up with useful I, and C,Technology is
getting their hands on some really useful real time tools, like Skype
or http://www.accessgrid.org/home and making them part of a cross
domainal web space.
Hey -- with recent post in the WE list we realised that we need to have a WG to address WE's needs for communication, but realised we didn't have an appropriate policy or mechnasim to respond to the challenge :)
Would be great if you could join our WG to set up WG policies and procedures so that we can tackle our communication challenges using our WG polcies (to be drafted). This is a little confusing -- but hope that you get the drift :-).
simonfj
Jun 7, 2009, 9:29:57 PM6/7/09
to WikiEducator
> Would be great if you could join our WG to set up WG policies and procedures
> so that we can tackle our communication challenges using our WG polcies (to
> be drafted). This is a little confusing -- but hope that you get the drift
> :-).
I'm old, but I still want some fun.
I'm trying very hard to understand what kind of tools different
communities prefer, can afford, or are willing to share, or share in
the building.
So when someone mentions one brand, like ning, (peter, nellie, pat,
etc) it has me rummaging through a bunch of domains, seeing which
combination of widgits is up to which stage of development today. e.g.
http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/social2.html
At the same time you've given me hope because you're on the advisory
for both WE and WMF. So encouraging the development of WG's tools,
which might federate across those two domains (as well as connexions,
OCWC domains, etc) is the challenge isn't it? Every domain,
unfortunately) puts "'their" community of groups at the top of "their"
tree. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Federation#Federation_plan_for_Wikimedia
What is needed in the first instance is for both advisory boards to
agree on a place (in whatever domain) to share groups with a common
interest. If we get this principle agreed then we can look at their
preferred abd very diverse) flavour of I and CT E.g. If you want to
have a play with having one phone number for our global group to talk,
you might play with this. http://www.gizmoconference.com/ . Which goes
to show, a "common place" needn't be defined by a domain name. (NB,
gizmo is an OPEN network, unlike Skype)
I have been busy with your "towards a learning institution" doc,
making notes
http://www.wikieducator.org/Talk:Funding_proposals/Towards_open_participatory_learning_environments:_Open_textbooks,_educator_training#lqt_thread_9405
and practicing. http://www.wikieducator.org/Practice:Towards_a_new_Institution_of_Learning#Adding_value_to_OER_infrastructure
If anyone has another "logic model", please link to it from the
disussion page. I really have a passion for such things.
I'm hoping we can at least see about adding education.au's name to
otago's, immediamum. This community are insearch of the obvious, like
us, and linking with them (got a handy MOU?) might help you out of an
Otago reductionism. http://me.edu.au/b/marktf/entry/edna_futures_discussion_paper
One key, if you want to drop it on the business managers over there,
is using KAREN to tap into akamai, and have them host NZ's unis OER
stuff.
We might look at doing some (higher bandwidth) stuff across the ditch,
both in real time and otherwise. At least that's going to be a
dicussion with marktf from education.au on thursday.
regards, simon
>
> > I have suggested to Brianna (in the Oz wikipedia chapter) that we
> > might also try to link up between BA and other spots around the globe
> > for Wikimania this year. It's probably a good time as many ISPs and
> > NREN's are trying to get their Quality of Service up, so they can
> > start kicking telcos' toll charges out of the way. NB There are about
> > 20,000 global students at my alma mater (
> >http://sae.edu/en-gb/news_overview/726/News
> > ) who are just starting to use this kind of tool.
>
> > They could use a mature community like WE to get their chops up.
>
> > Their community's toolkit isn't very good, (it's newish) but they can
> > move fast, especially if you can spaek german.
>
> > Lastly, this may be of some use.http://www.internet2.edu/wg/
>
> > Their community's toolkit isn't very good, (it's newish) but they can
> > move fast, especially if you can spaek german.
>
Wayne Mackintosh
Jun 7, 2009, 10:47:22 PM6/7/09
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Hi Simon,
In responses in text below ...
WE're planning on having lots of fun @ the OER Foundation / WikiEducator --- Open Philanthropy doesn't work with traditional hierarchies ;-) --- Still lots to learn about how self organisation will inform organisational relationships etc, but our system is open and will evolve accordingly.
Me too --- I'm not sure what tools are going to be the answer, but suspect that we will see multiple tools and approaches emerging. Being an optimist -- I'd like to see WikiEducator and the OER Foundation encouraging multiple tools and multiple scenarios that are going to work in supporting the OER community. There was life before wikis and no doubt there will be life after wikis-- and strategically we need to be prepared for changing futures.
The vision of the OER Foundation is to foster the development of sustainable OER ecosystems. Of necessity this will mean improving collaboration and networking among the various OER silos including OCWC, WMF projects, WikiEducator, Connexions etc.
I stopped using Gizmo a while ago after I couldn't find anyone on the Gizmo network to speak to -- Look's like I should install the Gizmo client again -- at least I now have someone I can call :-).
Saw your post on the talk page -- thanks. I'm working over here on developing the draft strategy documents for the OER Foundation (which are using relevant bits of the Hewlett bid text above) : http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:OER_Foundation/Strategy. Still lots of work to do -- comments and contributions always welcome :-)
The OER Foundation is an open independent non-profit -- in the spirit of open philanthropy lets draft the MOU as an open document :-).
Yip -- I'm hoping to have a chat with the CE of KAREN (end of this week) if all goes well. At the very least we'd like to see OER content sites whitelisted as educational sites on KAREN to enjoy some of the bandwidth benefits.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
In responses in text below ...
2009/6/8 simonfj <sim...@cols.com.au>
Wayne, You know I can't leave. But please, must WE be bureaucrats?
> Would be great if you could join our WG to set up WG policies and procedures
> so that we can tackle our communication challenges using our WG polcies (to
> be drafted). This is a little confusing -- but hope that you get the drift
> :-).
I'm old, but I still want some fun.
WE're planning on having lots of fun @ the OER Foundation / WikiEducator --- Open Philanthropy doesn't work with traditional hierarchies ;-) --- Still lots to learn about how self organisation will inform organisational relationships etc, but our system is open and will evolve accordingly.
I'm trying very hard to understand what kind of tools different
communities prefer, can afford, or are willing to share, or share in
the building.
So when someone mentions one brand, like ning, (peter, nellie, pat,
etc) it has me rummaging through a bunch of domains, seeing which
combination of widgits is up to which stage of development today. e.g.
http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/social2.html
Me too --- I'm not sure what tools are going to be the answer, but suspect that we will see multiple tools and approaches emerging. Being an optimist -- I'd like to see WikiEducator and the OER Foundation encouraging multiple tools and multiple scenarios that are going to work in supporting the OER community. There was life before wikis and no doubt there will be life after wikis-- and strategically we need to be prepared for changing futures.
At the same time you've given me hope because you're on the advisory
for both WE and WMF. So encouraging the development of WG's tools,
which might federate across those two domains (as well as connexions,
OCWC domains, etc) is the challenge isn't it? Every domain,
unfortunately) puts "'their" community of groups at the top of "their"
tree. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Federation#Federation_plan_for_Wikimedia
The vision of the OER Foundation is to foster the development of sustainable OER ecosystems. Of necessity this will mean improving collaboration and networking among the various OER silos including OCWC, WMF projects, WikiEducator, Connexions etc.
What is needed in the first instance is for both advisory boards to
agree on a place (in whatever domain) to share groups with a common
interest. If we get this principle agreed then we can look at their
preferred abd very diverse) flavour of I and CT E.g. If you want to
have a play with having one phone number for our global group to talk,
you might play with this. http://www.gizmoconference.com/ . Which goes
to show, a "common place" needn't be defined by a domain name. (NB,
gizmo is an OPEN network, unlike Skype)
I stopped using Gizmo a while ago after I couldn't find anyone on the Gizmo network to speak to -- Look's like I should install the Gizmo client again -- at least I now have someone I can call :-).
I have been busy with your "towards a learning institution" doc,
making notes
http://www.wikieducator.org/Talk:Funding_proposals/Towards_open_participatory_learning_environments:_Open_textbooks,_educator_training#lqt_thread_9405
and practicing. http://www.wikieducator.org/Practice:Towards_a_new_Institution_of_Learning#Adding_value_to_OER_infrastructure
Saw your post on the talk page -- thanks. I'm working over here on developing the draft strategy documents for the OER Foundation (which are using relevant bits of the Hewlett bid text above) : http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:OER_Foundation/Strategy. Still lots of work to do -- comments and contributions always welcome :-)
If anyone has another "logic model", please link to it from the
disussion page. I really have a passion for such things.
I'm hoping we can at least see about adding education.au's name to
otago's, immediamum. This community are insearch of the obvious, like
us, and linking with them (got a handy MOU?) might help you out of an
Otago reductionism. http://me.edu.au/b/marktf/entry/edna_futures_discussion_paper
The OER Foundation is an open independent non-profit -- in the spirit of open philanthropy lets draft the MOU as an open document :-).
One key, if you want to drop it on the business managers over there,
is using KAREN to tap into akamai, and have them host NZ's unis OER
stuff.
We might look at doing some (higher bandwidth) stuff across the ditch,
both in real time and otherwise. At least that's going to be a
dicussion with marktf from education.au on thursday.
Yip -- I'm hoping to have a chat with the CE of KAREN (end of this week) if all goes well. At the very least we'd like to see OER content sites whitelisted as educational sites on KAREN to enjoy some of the bandwidth benefits.
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
simonfj
Jun 9, 2009, 12:28:07 AM6/9/09
to WikiEducator
> > > Would be great if you could join our WG to set up WG policies and
> > procedures
> > > so that we can tackle our communication challenges using our WG polcies
> > (to
> > > be drafted). This is a little confusing -- but hope that you get the
> > drift
> > > :-).
>
> > Wayne, You know I can't leave. But please, must WE be bureaucrats?
> > I'm old, but I still want some fun.
>
> WE're planning on having lots of fun @ the OER Foundation / WikiEducator ---
> Open Philanthropy doesn't work with traditional hierarchies ;-) --- Still
> lots to learn about how self organisation will inform organisational
> relationships etc, but our system is open and will evolve accordingly.
pin down when we all know the key is to be inclusive of other
communities, and share the learning (and building). I find reading
debono helps re the self organizing. i.e. timing is important
===============================================================
>
>
> > I'm trying very hard to understand what kind of tools different
> > communities prefer, can afford, or are willing to share, or share in
> > the building.
> > So when someone mentions one brand, like ning, (peter, nellie, pat,
> > etc) it has me rummaging through a bunch of domains, seeing which
> > combination of widgits is up to which stage of development today. e.g.
> >http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/social2.html
>
> Me too --- I'm not sure what tools are going to be the answer, but suspect
> that we will see multiple tools and approaches emerging. Being an optimist
> -- I'd like to see WikiEducator and the OER Foundation encouraging multiple
> tools and multiple scenarios that are going to work in supporting the OER
> community. There was life before wikis and no doubt there will be life
> after wikis-- and strategically we need to be prepared for changing futures.
Are we cloned? ah yes, diversity. I remember when it was taken for
>
> > I'm trying very hard to understand what kind of tools different
> > communities prefer, can afford, or are willing to share, or share in
> > the building.
> > So when someone mentions one brand, like ning, (peter, nellie, pat,
> > etc) it has me rummaging through a bunch of domains, seeing which
> > combination of widgits is up to which stage of development today. e.g.
> >http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/social2.html
>
> Me too --- I'm not sure what tools are going to be the answer, but suspect
> that we will see multiple tools and approaches emerging. Being an optimist
> -- I'd like to see WikiEducator and the OER Foundation encouraging multiple
> tools and multiple scenarios that are going to work in supporting the OER
> community. There was life before wikis and no doubt there will be life
> after wikis-- and strategically we need to be prepared for changing futures.
granted.
If you want the geek spin on this, see this article and check out the
top (app) layer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Suite
The bottom three layers provide cannels on which our various boats
float, the most popular abiding by design rule "http:xxxxxxx.xxx"
Its such a pity as the USS SIP is a much more sociable boat to sail
on. That the protocol that sets up and strips down a telephone/multi
media session.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > At the same time you've given me hope because you're on the advisory
> > for both WE and WMF. So encouraging the development of WG's tools,
> > which might federate across those two domains (as well as connexions,
> > OCWC domains, etc) is the challenge isn't it? Every domain,
> > unfortunately) puts "'their" community of groups at the top of "their"
> > tree.
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Federation#Federation_plan_f...
> > At the same time you've given me hope because you're on the advisory
> > for both WE and WMF. So encouraging the development of WG's tools,
> > which might federate across those two domains (as well as connexions,
> > OCWC domains, etc) is the challenge isn't it? Every domain,
> > unfortunately) puts "'their" community of groups at the top of "their"
> > tree.
>
> The vision of the OER Foundation is to foster the development of sustainable
> OER ecosystems. Of necessity this will mean improving collaboration and
> networking among the various OER silos including OCWC, WMF projects,
> WikiEducator, Connexions etc.
My "logical model" is very clear on this. My self deception has me
> The vision of the OER Foundation is to foster the development of sustainable
> OER ecosystems. Of necessity this will mean improving collaboration and
> networking among the various OER silos including OCWC, WMF projects,
> WikiEducator, Connexions etc.
pondering on all the similar WG's which are buried inside domains.
This is nothing to do with retaining privacy inside a domain (a lot of
the time). It's just that we think from inside a domain because we are
orientated by http aggregations, many of which are built around (in
the global case) a single (or ad hoc group of) tools. and then
branded, so consumers can lust after something new.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > What is needed in the first instance is for both advisory boards to
> > agree on a place (in whatever domain) to share groups with a common
> > interest. If we get this principle agreed then we can look at their
> > preferred abd very diverse) flavour of I and CT E.g. If you want to
> > have a play with having one phone number for our global group to talk,
> > you might play with this.http://www.gizmoconference.com/. Which goes
> > What is needed in the first instance is for both advisory boards to
> > agree on a place (in whatever domain) to share groups with a common
> > interest. If we get this principle agreed then we can look at their
> > preferred abd very diverse) flavour of I and CT E.g. If you want to
> > have a play with having one phone number for our global group to talk,
> > to show, a "common place" needn't be defined by a domain name. (NB,
> > gizmo is an OPEN network, unlike Skype)
>
> I stopped using Gizmo a while ago after I couldn't find anyone on the Gizmo
> network to speak to -- Look's like I should install the Gizmo client again
> -- at least I now have someone I can call :-)
You've missed my point. What I was pointing at was a way to set up a
> > gizmo is an OPEN network, unlike Skype)
>
> I stopped using Gizmo a while ago after I couldn't find anyone on the Gizmo
> network to speak to -- Look's like I should install the Gizmo client again
> -- at least I now have someone I can call :-)
private conference room (with a set number), for our group.
I can ring it for 2c/min or nothing if i make a little effort. I don't
know what the quality is like, and there's only one way to find out.
Remember, I'm a geek There's no difference (to me) between a single
phone call (between two boxes) or a fully blown accessgrid type
session - apart from bandwidth and a few more apps. The ROOM number
stays the same.
Where you are quoting benkler about "commons based peer production",
I'm trying to get various mousetrap builders to understand that their
pipes need to be configured around different (non institutional=
global groups) phone-like numbers (i.e.an IP address) , and automated,
so a group of services can become affordable. http://www.arcs.org.au/about.
If you want a "real time" insight into what might apps be attached to
the number, you might take a peek at this propecting tool.
http://www.opencastproject.org/content/about_opencast and consider
how useless it might be if the Input/outputs are not considered
together along with the pipes. And this is one of many potentials for
developing an online production/distribution model.
=====================================================
> > I have been busy with your "towards a learning institution" doc,
> > making notes
>
> > and practicing.
> >http://www.wikieducator.org/Practice:Towards_a_new_Institution_of_Lea...
>
> Saw your post on the talk page -- thanks. I'm working over here on
> developing the draft strategy documents for the OER Foundation (which are
> using relevant bits of the Hewlett bid text above) :http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:OER_Foundation/Strategy. Still lots of
> work to do -- comments and contributions always welcome :-)
>
The graphic is just my favourite. But it kinda changes the whole
> Saw your post on the talk page -- thanks. I'm working over here on
> developing the draft strategy documents for the OER Foundation (which are
> using relevant bits of the Hewlett bid text above) :http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:OER_Foundation/Strategy. Still lots of
> work to do -- comments and contributions always welcome :-)
>
flavour of your prop. The main difference is that (the model) it's
circular = inputs to outputs and around again, rather than the linear
production line. I'll keep "practicing" with the prop doc, para by
para. If anyone feels they need to do a wholesale massacre on it,
please go ahead.
==============================
>
> > If anyone has another "logic model", please link to it from the
> > disussion page. I really have a passion for such things.
>
> > I'm hoping we can at least see about adding education.au's name to
> > otago's, immediamum. This community are insearch of the obvious, like
> > us, and linking with them (got a handy MOU?) might help you out of an
> > Otago reductionism.
> >http://me.edu.au/b/marktf/entry/edna_futures_discussion_paper
>
> The OER Foundation is an open independent non-profit -- in the spirit of
> open philanthropy lets draft the MOU as an open document :-).
OK, But I'll give you fair warning. The philanthropy is great, but I'm
> > If anyone has another "logic model", please link to it from the
> > disussion page. I really have a passion for such things.
>
> > I'm hoping we can at least see about adding education.au's name to
> > otago's, immediamum. This community are insearch of the obvious, like
> > us, and linking with them (got a handy MOU?) might help you out of an
> > Otago reductionism.
> >http://me.edu.au/b/marktf/entry/edna_futures_discussion_paper
>
> The OER Foundation is an open independent non-profit -- in the spirit of
> open philanthropy lets draft the MOU as an open document :-).
aiming to discover the business case which will support a bunch of
media industries. Can't let Leigh do all the work. ('academic business
case' sounds like a oxymoron)
You'll see I've been bantering your name about.
http://me.edu.au/b/marktf/entry/edna_futures_presentation
===================================
>
>
>
> > One key, if you want to drop it on the business managers over there,
> > is using KAREN to tap into akamai, and have them host NZ's unis OER
> > stuff.
> > We might look at doing some (higher bandwidth) stuff across the ditch,
> > both in real time and otherwise. At least that's going to be a
> > dicussion with marktf from education.au on thursday.
>
> Yip -- I'm hoping to have a chat with the CE of KAREN (end of this week) if
> all goes well. At the very least we'd like to see OER content sites
> whitelisted as educational sites on KAREN to enjoy some of the bandwidth
> benefits.
Hey, ya gotta speaka lingo. Quite a few silos do this already. (silos
>
>
> > One key, if you want to drop it on the business managers over there,
> > is using KAREN to tap into akamai, and have them host NZ's unis OER
> > stuff.
> > We might look at doing some (higher bandwidth) stuff across the ditch,
> > both in real time and otherwise. At least that's going to be a
> > dicussion with marktf from education.au on thursday.
>
> Yip -- I'm hoping to have a chat with the CE of KAREN (end of this week) if
> all goes well. At the very least we'd like to see OER content sites
> whitelisted as educational sites on KAREN to enjoy some of the bandwidth
> benefits.
are like otago, attached to an NREN). AArnet is one of a number of
NREN which are "plugged" in to akamai. http://www.aarnet.edu.au/Content.aspx?p=121
That's simple. It's the charging (off net) which is the problem. If
you want just KAREN and AArnet communities to talk, then just have
them peer and share a common boxful of apps and storage = no off net
charges = whitelisted. But we're trying to something which is for the
greater (global) good here. And whitelisting certain domains or
portfolios is the common dream , not a technical specification
I'll send you some guff before friday if dan from the sydney office
gets back to me. http://www.akamai.com/html/about/locations.html
Are WE having fun yet? best, simon
==============================
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages