Fwd: Draft of Local Team memo

[Greg Bloom]

Hi folks - 

I've talked to many of you about this, but finally put it all together in one document at some greater length. This memo goes into some more detail (beyond that which is in our public documentation) as to the structure and process of the local teams that will be piloting the Open Referral initiative. Check it out here. 

It's just a draft, and I'm sharing it in hopes that we receive critical feedback to make it better. I'll note that -- in evaluating this proposal -- we'll model the process itself: let's collect feedback from everyone, I'll bottom-line the work of synthesizing it, and it will be local stakeholders who make the decisions, if decisions between divergent options are necessary. 

We'll be forming these teams over the course of the spring and early summer. 

Some notes: 

- This document is meant to be a companion to another memo that I'm also drafting, describing the structure and process of our 'standards table.' I aim to have that to share by the end of the week.

- I want to develop some handy visuals that graphically present this information. (This is an old version that needs much improvement.) I would love some help with this.

Looking forward to hear your thoughts. What's missing? What might need some recalibration? Where are the key assumptions that we know we'll have to test?

Onwards,

greg

--

• gjb •

202.643.3648

[Greg Bloom]

Thanks Sameer!

First of all, sorry for what may be a confusing array of documents right now -- there's another memo that elaborates on the 'Standards Table' that's linked in the 'Public Documentation' and is a critical companion to the Local Teams memo. I'm eager to consolidate these into a more navigable architecture, but also not sure how I feel about putting working documents on our current http://openreferral.org site -- would welcome suggestions.

1. Maybe in the Local Teams memo, it'll help to make explicit an expectation on how local team "check in" with the global effort. I think it's somewhat implied, but might be worth putting some stake in the ground regarding timelines and deliverables, even if to start a conversation about it.

I agree. I'm soliciting suggestions for this from you all. I do have some thoughts in mind. For instance: I think that our Local Team leads -- including our organizer, as well as ideally at least one stakeholder champion -- could actually be at the 'Standards Table' as an active participant: the product owners, if you will. Along these lines: I propose that Local Teams should have cyclical evaluations that get written up -- both for their own ongoing edification, and also to share with the Standards Table as actionable feedback. Finally, I'm proposing that the standards development cycles should be structured around a series of summits, which should be based in our pilot localities with local stakeholders (first in SF Bay this summer, then in DC later this year, presumably).

1. I see the words "analysts" and "researchers" used among "user types" - are they same? Do they include "case workers"?

My bad - analysts and researchers are synonymous. I waffle between which one is more effective. Basically - anyone who is trying to evaluate the health of communities overall (i.e. funder, policy maker, wonk, community leader, etc).

Case worker would be a service provider. Note that I'd  also say that I&R frontline operators (i.e. the person who answers the phone at 2-1-1) falls in this user type.

1. This is more long-term. I'm a bit torn about NIEM - love that it's a national effort, but not sure how to effectively leverage it... anyone you know there that can participate in conversations?

Of the three existing standards that I'm challenging us to align with, NIEM seems like the least immediately important, but potentially the most important in the long-term. I think it's an open question as to how the Standards Table working group interprets this prerogative. It may not be a short-term requirement. I'm engaged in conversations with NIEM folks, and we have a few in our standards group and should ask them to educate us about it. And I think we should expect them to help bring the expertise necessary to accomplish NIEM-compatibility, so that it's not yet another thing that any of us has to learn from scratch on our own.

How does all that sound?
~greg

 

Sameer.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Referral Bay Area" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-referral-bay...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

• gjb •

202.643.3648