Thread:Workgroup types (4)

I'm still struggling with the definitions of and distinctions between the types of workgroups: community, council and project. Ben's examples for community help, but I'm still not there.


 * WE still need to get the distinctions clear -- and we can think about developing clear definitions in the definition section of the draft. For me its important to ensure that:
 * Workgroups to develop policy and wikied-wide changes can be initiated by the community and the council, in other words that the establishment of workgroups is not restricted privilege of the Council.
 * Council initiated and Community initiated workgroups operate under the same guidelines for transparency, approval processes etc.
 * the workgroup guidelines/policy is not intended to restrict or stop groups forming to support individual projects. It would be unfortunate if a WE member used the workgroups policy as a "stick" to stop organic groups forming for individual projects --Wayne Mackintosh 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben, You used the term "general workgoup" to refer to Wayne's proposed "project workgroup." Not sure if you meant to change the name. I wonder if this type of group might be better named "content workgroup" given the broad meaning associated with project -- on WE a project is very broadly defined, it doesn't need to be content-based. For example, the WE training effort is clearly a project. But we're thinking that the breadth of this group's effort (it's community wide) makes them a community workgroup. OTOH, maybe "content workgroup" is too narrow.


 * mmmm the concepts of "project workgroup" or "general workgroup" are too restrictive and do not cover the range of clusters, country nodes, individual project groups etc. Perhaps we just need to say that other "groupings like country nodes, project committees, clusters etc are not covered by the "workgroup" policy. --Wayne Mackintosh 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering how groups like Clusters of Interest and National teams, e.g., WikiEducator Mexico & WikiEducator India, relate to workgroups.


 * as suggested above -- I don't think the workgroup policy should attempt to cover all possible groupings -- that said, we need to be clear in our definitions in terms of what is covered and what is excluded. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, I completely agree with these guidelines being particularly focused on wikiEducator wide interventions and that individual projects organized around specific content are not bound to any particular requirements. But it seems to me that content-based workgroups may be struggling with some of the same issues as community workgroups. How to get traction to start and then how to sustain the momentum.


 * Absolutely -- in total agreement :-)-- the development of training resources, guidelines, examples are very important in helping folk get started and is well aligned with our community motto -- Just try it, our community will support you. Just thinking that the workgroup guidelines/policy is not the vehicle to achieve these aims. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a bunch of thoughts bunched together here. The discussion (here on the discussion page) is definitely helping.


 * No worries -- I responded in text :-) --Wayne Mackintosh 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.