A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group discussions
1 view
Skip to first unread message
David A. Bray
Jun 17, 2009, 6:52:51 PM6/17/09
to FedKM
Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions to consider:
(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
structure to the discussions… it’s hard to integrate what’s being said
across discussions and with past discussions
(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format
(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)
(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that’s being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?
… If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
within its own efforts, right? :-)
Best regards,
-d.
David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
Institute for Defense Analyses
discussions to consider:
(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
structure to the discussions… it’s hard to integrate what’s being said
across discussions and with past discussions
(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format
(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)
(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that’s being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?
… If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
within its own efforts, right? :-)
Best regards,
-d.
David A. Bray, PhD, MSPH
Institute for Defense Analyses
Fred Nickols
Jun 17, 2009, 7:15:59 PM6/17/09
to FedKM
I think the threads are more easily followed on the web site than they
are in your in-box. That's one of the things I like about Google's
groups.
are in your in-box. That's one of the things I like about Google's
groups.
Karen Danis
Jun 18, 2009, 2:03:58 AM6/18/09
to fe...@googlegroups.com
I am expecting the structure to return once we can get back on task. Neil
formed this group to advance the Federal KM Initiative, the first step of
which was to create the draft Roadmap.
I understand that the editors and Neil are still evaluating the work,
determining our path forward, to include filling in the missing pieces.
In the meantime we have tossed around a number of ideas, many of which lie
in the realm of the theoretical.
Frankly, I believe that most folks--especially those who joined early, the
Action Group members--are willing to work on the Initiative in concrete,
tangible ways. Hopefully they will be persuaded to hang on until we can
reestablish our focus.
Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
David A. Bray
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:53 PM
To: FedKM
Subject: [FedKM:444] A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google
group discussions
Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions to consider:
(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
structure to the discussions. it's hard to integrate what's being said
formed this group to advance the Federal KM Initiative, the first step of
which was to create the draft Roadmap.
I understand that the editors and Neil are still evaluating the work,
determining our path forward, to include filling in the missing pieces.
In the meantime we have tossed around a number of ideas, many of which lie
in the realm of the theoretical.
Frankly, I believe that most folks--especially those who joined early, the
Action Group members--are willing to work on the Initiative in concrete,
tangible ways. Hopefully they will be persuaded to hang on until we can
reestablish our focus.
Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: fe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
David A. Bray
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:53 PM
To: FedKM
Subject: [FedKM:444] A few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google
group discussions
Just a few observations about the FedKM listserv/Google group
discussions to consider:
(1) we're losing most participants who can't keep up with the
voluminous discussions we're having... I fear it's not so much that
there's too much discussion (this should be encouraged) but a lack of
across discussions and with past discussions
(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format
(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)
(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that's being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?
. If anything, the FedKM should be able to practice what it preaches
(2) related to this, we're repeating ourselves... I'm seeming themes
repeat themselves 1-2 weeks after a similar discussion thread... this
is partly because memory of that past thread is lost or inaccessible
to newcomers in an easy format
(3) hard to tease out what's substantive discussion vs. product or
consulting pitches to be frank; also hard to built an iterative and
improving body of knowledge as a result of the discussions because of
(1) and (2)
(4) email is cheap, so unfortunately we get a lot of it; how can we
make the discussions here more valuable and succinct, while at the
same time additive to a greater, more valuable body of knowledge? How
can we translate anything that's being said into actionable material
for FedKM efforts?
Neil Olonoff
Jun 18, 2009, 5:07:17 AM6/18/09
to fe...@googlegroups.com
David,
I think what you are describing are normal characteristics of a semi-public listserv. In order to control the conversation further we would have to restrict membership even more tightly and moderate very strictly. To be honest I think we would end up with a dead listserv.
Right now, we have an interesting exchange of ideas, although perhaps frustrating to those who want to see the Initiative "move smartly out" in formation towards consummation. Not the best of all worlds, but possibly the best we can manage at the moment.
Regards,
Neil
Neil Olonoff olo...@gmail.com
Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
Federal KM Working Group hosted at http://KM.gov
Office: 703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
Blogging at http://FedKM.org
I think what you are describing are normal characteristics of a semi-public listserv. In order to control the conversation further we would have to restrict membership even more tightly and moderate very strictly. To be honest I think we would end up with a dead listserv.
Right now, we have an interesting exchange of ideas, although perhaps frustrating to those who want to see the Initiative "move smartly out" in formation towards consummation. Not the best of all worlds, but possibly the best we can manage at the moment.
Regards,
Neil
Neil Olonoff olo...@gmail.com
Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
Federal KM Working Group hosted at http://KM.gov
Office: 703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
Personal profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
Blogging at http://FedKM.org
denis...@us.pwc.com
Jun 18, 2009, 9:18:50 AM6/18/09
to fe...@googlegroups.com
Is there an estimated date of when we will be reviewing the next draft of the whole document?
Denise
________________________________
Denise Lee
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Washington Federal Practice
McLean, Virginia
Office - 703-918-3683
Cell - 703-850-7450
| "Karen Danis"
<gkd...@comcast.net>
Sent by: fe...@googlegroups.com 06/18/2009 02:03 AM
|
|
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership.
David A. Bray
Jun 18, 2009, 8:32:10 PM6/18/09
to FedKM
Hi Neil,
Agree to a degree, but also disagree somewhat too... I did note that I
thought it's *not* because there's too much discussion (this should be
encouraged) but a lack of structure to the discussions… and a part of
that structure ties to an email you sent, which is the project team
and how to translate all the conversations here into things that have
benefit.
(i.e., we don't want to all be the metaphorical tree that falls in the
forest, but no one else in government hears it so our efforts were for
naught)
That said, while public listservs certainly can be a bit free-
wheeling, you can develop an ethos or "terms of use" that helps
encourage more beneficial contributions, less spam. I'm helping (as a
volunteer only) the DOE with a similar effort that includes some
structured components (both in terms of this ethos as well as the
interface presented for contributions) that seek to better harness the
collective intelligence of others in way that surpasses Google groups.
I don't buy that Google groups is well-structured for our task at hand
(for the KM group to settle for a "bulletin-board" approach to harness
our distributed brainpower doesn't cut the mustard), we can do much
better.
The good news is the folks with GlobalEESE (http://
www.globaleese.org/ ... though it's still in beta) are planning to
make their tools open source, so they could be re-leveraged for our
purposes with minimal investment. I'm not saying we *should* (or
shouldn't) do this, but just point out that we're lacking cumulative
knowledge building, we're repeating ourselves, and we're failing to
translate all these conversations into lessons learned or materials
for policy-related actions.
I'm also going to cut-and-paste GlobalEESE's terms of use... because
they might be a model for us to adopt for our own discussions, in an
effort to increase positive contributions, decrease sales-pitches/
spam... you might be particularly interested at the "Please Do Post"
and "Please Do Not Post" guidance; here's the text:
* Global Energy and Environment Strategic Ecosystem (EESE) - Code of
Contributions *
By participating in Global Energy and Environment Strategic Ecosystem
(EESE), all of our community members agree to abide by the Code of
Contributions, post appropriate content, and espouse l'Espirit d'EESE
(the EESE Spirit, detailed below).
Content Contributions
Public postings: All content posted to public areas of the EESE Web
site, including but not limited to the Forum and Question Stream, are
licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution license. This means that
your contributions may be reused and modified by anyone for any
purpose, so long as they attribute the original content to you.
Previously or self-copyrighted contributions to which you own rights:
The EESE website allows a forum for community members to post
previously published and yet-to-be published research to which the
member owns rights, both in the form of file attachments and text
submissions. If such a contribution is or becomes subject to another
copyright, this will be honored by EESE as long as this restriction is
stated; however, please do not post copyrighted material to which you
do not own rights.
Private contributions: The EESE Web site provides tools for private
communication between its members. Such material is considered private
to the correspondents, and therefore not subject to the CC license.
EESE will never disclose the contents of such communications except
when required to by law.
Contribution Guidelines
+ Please do not post copyrighted material to which you do not own
rights. You may provide external links to copyrighted material where
appropriate.
+ Please recognize that EESE contributions represent the views of the
responsible community members only and do not constitute the official
views of EESE or of any governmental agency or private organization.
+ EESE community members should respect each other and neither harass
nor abuse others; this includes refraining from negative or offensive
comments regarding individuals or organizations.
+ EESE community members should report any postings that seem to
harass or abuse others to the EESE website administrators, who may
remove the postings and disable membership access to any irresponsible
participants failing to abide by the Code of Contributions.
Please Do Not Post:
+ Any material barred by law from public or private disclosure; this
includes privileged, classified, or proprietary information to which
you do not have the rights to release.
+ Any propaganda; this includes commercial promotions, advertisements,
or solicitations.
Please Do Post:
+ Truthful contributions, with accurate writing, fact-based reports,
and corrected mistakes where appropriate.
+ Quality contributions, with links provided to online references and
original source material where possible.
+ Friendly contributions, to include respectful disagreements should
any occur; please agree to disagree on perspectives if no "middle
ground" can be found.
+ Valuable contributions, to provide important insights relevant to
energy and environmental issues.
+ Contributions backed by objective rather than subjective data.
L'Espirit d'EESE (the EESE Spirit):
EESE provides a community website for all members to engage in
purposeful conversations on key energy and environmental issues.
Community members as a group, not the website administrators, should
co-review posts to the EESE website for truth and accuracy.
Community members should help promote the EESE Code of Contributions,
to include providing both patience and understanding to new EESE
community members unfamiliar with the practices of the website. If
requested, website administrations will review specific posts for non-
compliance with the Code and will take appropriate actions if
necessary. EESE community members collectively should help other
members abide by the Code of Contributions, post appropriate content,
and espouse l'Espirit d'EESE.
By participating in EESE you implicitly agree to abide by these terms,
we now ask you to please indicate your explicit acceptance of these
terms as well.
On Jun 18, 5:07 am, Neil Olonoff <olon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> I think what you are describing are normal characteristics of a semi-public
> listserv. In order to control the conversation further we would have to
> restrict membership even more tightly and moderate very strictly. To be
> honest I think we would end up with a dead listserv.
>
> Right now, we have an interesting exchange of ideas, although perhaps
> frustrating to those who want to see the Initiative "move smartly out" in
> formation towards consummation. Not the best of all worlds, but possibly
> the best we can manage at the moment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Neil Olonoff olon...@gmail.com
> > Institute for Defense Analyses- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agree to a degree, but also disagree somewhat too... I did note that I
thought it's *not* because there's too much discussion (this should be
encouraged) but a lack of structure to the discussions… and a part of
that structure ties to an email you sent, which is the project team
and how to translate all the conversations here into things that have
benefit.
(i.e., we don't want to all be the metaphorical tree that falls in the
forest, but no one else in government hears it so our efforts were for
naught)
That said, while public listservs certainly can be a bit free-
wheeling, you can develop an ethos or "terms of use" that helps
encourage more beneficial contributions, less spam. I'm helping (as a
volunteer only) the DOE with a similar effort that includes some
structured components (both in terms of this ethos as well as the
interface presented for contributions) that seek to better harness the
collective intelligence of others in way that surpasses Google groups.
I don't buy that Google groups is well-structured for our task at hand
(for the KM group to settle for a "bulletin-board" approach to harness
our distributed brainpower doesn't cut the mustard), we can do much
better.
The good news is the folks with GlobalEESE (http://
www.globaleese.org/ ... though it's still in beta) are planning to
make their tools open source, so they could be re-leveraged for our
purposes with minimal investment. I'm not saying we *should* (or
shouldn't) do this, but just point out that we're lacking cumulative
knowledge building, we're repeating ourselves, and we're failing to
translate all these conversations into lessons learned or materials
for policy-related actions.
I'm also going to cut-and-paste GlobalEESE's terms of use... because
they might be a model for us to adopt for our own discussions, in an
effort to increase positive contributions, decrease sales-pitches/
spam... you might be particularly interested at the "Please Do Post"
and "Please Do Not Post" guidance; here's the text:
* Global Energy and Environment Strategic Ecosystem (EESE) - Code of
Contributions *
By participating in Global Energy and Environment Strategic Ecosystem
(EESE), all of our community members agree to abide by the Code of
Contributions, post appropriate content, and espouse l'Espirit d'EESE
(the EESE Spirit, detailed below).
Content Contributions
Public postings: All content posted to public areas of the EESE Web
site, including but not limited to the Forum and Question Stream, are
licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution license. This means that
your contributions may be reused and modified by anyone for any
purpose, so long as they attribute the original content to you.
Previously or self-copyrighted contributions to which you own rights:
The EESE website allows a forum for community members to post
previously published and yet-to-be published research to which the
member owns rights, both in the form of file attachments and text
submissions. If such a contribution is or becomes subject to another
copyright, this will be honored by EESE as long as this restriction is
stated; however, please do not post copyrighted material to which you
do not own rights.
Private contributions: The EESE Web site provides tools for private
communication between its members. Such material is considered private
to the correspondents, and therefore not subject to the CC license.
EESE will never disclose the contents of such communications except
when required to by law.
Contribution Guidelines
+ Please do not post copyrighted material to which you do not own
rights. You may provide external links to copyrighted material where
appropriate.
+ Please recognize that EESE contributions represent the views of the
responsible community members only and do not constitute the official
views of EESE or of any governmental agency or private organization.
+ EESE community members should respect each other and neither harass
nor abuse others; this includes refraining from negative or offensive
comments regarding individuals or organizations.
+ EESE community members should report any postings that seem to
harass or abuse others to the EESE website administrators, who may
remove the postings and disable membership access to any irresponsible
participants failing to abide by the Code of Contributions.
Please Do Not Post:
+ Any material barred by law from public or private disclosure; this
includes privileged, classified, or proprietary information to which
you do not have the rights to release.
+ Any propaganda; this includes commercial promotions, advertisements,
or solicitations.
Please Do Post:
+ Truthful contributions, with accurate writing, fact-based reports,
and corrected mistakes where appropriate.
+ Quality contributions, with links provided to online references and
original source material where possible.
+ Friendly contributions, to include respectful disagreements should
any occur; please agree to disagree on perspectives if no "middle
ground" can be found.
+ Valuable contributions, to provide important insights relevant to
energy and environmental issues.
+ Contributions backed by objective rather than subjective data.
L'Espirit d'EESE (the EESE Spirit):
EESE provides a community website for all members to engage in
purposeful conversations on key energy and environmental issues.
Community members as a group, not the website administrators, should
co-review posts to the EESE website for truth and accuracy.
Community members should help promote the EESE Code of Contributions,
to include providing both patience and understanding to new EESE
community members unfamiliar with the practices of the website. If
requested, website administrations will review specific posts for non-
compliance with the Code and will take appropriate actions if
necessary. EESE community members collectively should help other
members abide by the Code of Contributions, post appropriate content,
and espouse l'Espirit d'EESE.
By participating in EESE you implicitly agree to abide by these terms,
we now ask you to please indicate your explicit acceptance of these
terms as well.
On Jun 18, 5:07 am, Neil Olonoff <olon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> I think what you are describing are normal characteristics of a semi-public
> listserv. In order to control the conversation further we would have to
> restrict membership even more tightly and moderate very strictly. To be
> honest I think we would end up with a dead listserv.
>
> Right now, we have an interesting exchange of ideas, although perhaps
> frustrating to those who want to see the Initiative "move smartly out" in
> formation towards consummation. Not the best of all worlds, but possibly
> the best we can manage at the moment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Lead, Federal Knowledge Management Initiative,
> Federal KM Working Group hosted at http://KM.gov
> Office: 703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
> Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
> Personal profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
> Blogging athttp://FedKM.org
> Federal KM Working Group hosted at http://KM.gov
> Office: 703.614.5058 (US Army HQDA, G-4/Contracted by Innolog)
> Mobile: 703.283.4157 (Disabled during working hours)
> Personal profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/olonoff
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages