Membership and admin stuff
Carl May
This group seems to function very well. There are 25 members including
several who have taken up 'observer' status rather than active
participation. The group generates a relatively low volume of email
traffic but this also leads to interesting exchanges "off-google."
Once we start working on the Manual and putting drafts of documents on
the group's pages 'for comment' then there will be more traffic.
There's a couple of things that I'd be interested in your responses
to:
1. The first is about is how big this group should get. Will you take
a 'more the merrier' view? Or, in view of the newsgroup being the
venue for much of the development work around manual writing would you
prefer to be a little more restrictive about numbers? I'm asking this
for two reasons. First, because I am the group's 'owner' it's my job
to admit new members if they ask for an invitation to join. So there's
some procedural stuff. But second, there are people dotted around the
globe who are interested in applying the NPM to their work and who -
if I have sense of the group's wishes - could be invited (or not
invited) to join.
2. Then there is the question of 'ownership' of the group. At the
moment, I am the 'owner' of the group and can control some its admin
functions. I would like to recruit a co-owner who can share those
functions. For this I need a volunteer.
Finally, at sometime in the last 24 hours the original BMC paper was
accessed for the 4000th time. I've told my Mum she can stop now....
Best to all, Carl
Shaun Treweek
Pauline Ong
I think the same as Shaun, and it would be particulerly useful to have
the international perspective.
I am pleased that Shaun has volunteered.
Regarding access stats - you probably did not need your mum anyway...
Love
Pauline
Shaun Treweek wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> I'm happy to a the more the merrier approach to invitations. I'd also
> be happy to be a co-owner of the group and share some of the admin
> functions. Due to some technical quirk I'm already a group manager,
> which means that I'd just have to start using the power I have
> accidentally already been given..
>
> And well done on the access stats for the original BMC paper, which
> demonstrate very nicely the need for such a model.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Shaun
>
> Shaun Treweek
> Research Fellow
> Tayside Centre for General Practice
> University of Dundee, UK
>
> Researcher
> Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norway
>
> Contact details:
> Tayside Centre for General Practice
> University of Dundee
> Kirsty Semple Way
> Dundee DD2 4BF
> UK
>
> Email: stre...@mac.com <mailto:stre...@mac.com>
--
Pauline B.N.Ong
Professor of Health Services Research
Primary Care Musculoskeletal Research Centre
Primary Care Sciences
Keele University
Keele
ST5 5BG
Tel: 01782 584708
Fax: 01782 583911
Email: b.n...@keele.ac.uk
Ballini Luciana
Dear Carl,
I also agree and am very happy with the open and merrier view of the group.
Now do remind me: what where the stats for the TPB manual's accesses that Martin kept on boasting about?
Have a lovely weekend
luciana
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: normalization...@googlegroups.com [mailto:normalization...@googlegroups.com] Per conto di Carl May
Inviato: giovedì 14 giugno 2007 0.20
A: Normalization Process Model
Oggetto: Membership and admin stuff
Weijden Trudy (vander) (HAG)
Otherwise I'd love to follow this work, as a representant of Richard Grol's Dutch Centre for Quality of Care Research. Thank you for including me in this group, and congratulaions with the huge impact of your latest BMC paper.
best wishes, trudy
tracy...@ncl.ac.uk
Tracy
Carl May
Thanks to everyone who has replied to this post for your encouragement
to be inclusive, as potential members come along (and there are two at
the moment) we'll include them. Trudy and France also join in, in the
most convivial way. Thanks also to Shaun for agreeing to be co-owner
of the NPM Newsgroup.
I think we're set then.....