Thread:Sections that make up a charter (2)

Hi Ben,

Wow --- thanks again for your contributions. It would be great if you would consider adding your name to the list of participants on this group. In response to the suggestions from Thompson et al, let's evaluate how well we're doing:


 * 1) We have a statement of Aims and objectives -- so that's covered
 * 2) We have the roles of convenor specified including the option to co-opt co-convenor(s). By nature wiki's are self-organising. For example -- you are not listed as a participant of this group, but your inputs are contributing to the refinement and quality of this group :-)
 * 3) mmmm -- yes I think we need to be more focused on the listing of participant skills as they pertain to the task of the workgroup. Perhaps the subheading of required skills should be placed before the listing of participants?
 * 4) As an open community I'm not sure whether we should go down the path of defining categories of members -- this risks excluding the range of volunteers on which our community depends. Ultimately --- its the quality of the outputs which count, not the qualifications of the participating members. Here I see that the Community Council has a responsibility in assessing whether policy guidelines are logical, will contribute to the development of WE taking into account the skills and experience of the workgroup participants. If the proposed guidelines are of poor quality they should be referred back to the work group.
 * 5) We have a section which considers resources -- so that's covered
 * 6) Regarding timelines -- I think milestones and corresponding dates should be specified in the charter. These time frames need to be determined by the workgroup taking into account the scheduled meeting dates of Council.
 * 7) Regarding the questions of workgroup process -- I think the workgroup should decide these parameters -- After all the work group is responsible for getting the work done :-)
 * 8) Securing equal committment -- well that depends on the individuals involved -- wiki's typically rely on the efforts of volunteers and its been my experience in WikiEducator that the majority of participants act in good faith in the interests of the project.
 * 9) Resolving conflict --- the WP guidelines on consensus provide a solid foundation to work from  --- that said, I think that we should think about the refinements that are necessary and appropriate for our community.
 * 10) Yip -- we need to work on developing a clear project plan with corresponding milestones and ideally specify this in the guidelines. I think that its also important to think about reasonable and achievable targets. This relates to your earlier comment about the ability of members to contribute.
 * 11) Evaluation and reflection is very important -- I think we have this heading, but haven't spent time populating this section yet.

Ben -- these are very valuable suggestions and I think we're on track to getting many of these covered in the draft guidelines. As a wiki, the charter will always be a dynamic document as in the case of this workgroup :-).

Cheers