Some thoughts
Hi Simon,
Yip I agree -- much room for improvement on graphic depicting the logical framework. I think that we need to start brainstorming what the ecosystem might look like visually.
The graphic contained in the funding proposal was developed within the focus of the funding proposal to Hewlett -- and is not a logical framework for the OER ecosystem as such -- I'm personally not a great fan of the industrial approach -- but for the purposes of a funding grant, we need to be very specific about our inputs, and measurable outputs. Sure -- this doesn't begin to capture the real energy and potential of self organising systems.
I've started playing with a "theory of action" as part of the strategic planning process for the OER Foundation for the next 3 years. The graphic is also an oversimplification --- but with each iteration -- we're improving our understanding of what the broader eco-system might look.
mmm still lots of work to do. Do you want to have a bash at drafting a concept visualisatio.n of an "OER ecosystem" -- this will help us tremendously in in getting our strategy right.
Cheers Wayne
Sorry, been a bit busy. You would have that invite to GLAMwiki in Oz now. http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00646.html
Like the strategy approach. Wish I could get a few more communities to do the same and share. Here's another model, which has been through a few editions. This kinda works, taken for granted that we consider all the tools we want are loaded onto one node. i.e. we (conservation types) are in an existing institution.
I'm slow but deliberate, so a few things first. Could we do away with any reference to peda(gogy). I'm not going to be, and won't be treating, anyone like a child so andragogy is the educational paradigm. Helps to distinguish the OE approach.
I can see how the reusability paradox is supposed to work. But that infers "education by delivery" and i thought the approach we're taking is "education by inquiry". But it's obviously something you see a 'hot button'.
Do you think we could include something which talks about developing a "real time communications" infrastructure? (e.g. http://commons.internet2.edu/rtc/ ) I'm sure hewlitt would spring for this, especially if their R&D team was involved. (and add a few noughts to the budget)
This goes back to my talk about gizmo. There's no reason why we couldn't be running a monthly get together rather than (in addition to) hopping on planes. Because we don't, the engineers never get 'in the groove', and figure out ways to automate a (dial in) number in each country that establishes links between global nodes, which either support a teleconference, web session, videoconference or a full blown accessgrid session. only bandwidth restricts.
If we go down this path, then we're going to quickly come up with a numbering system which brings a whole bunch of domain (name) centric communities to the same place (so they can share productions).
