Discussion protocol

Jump to: navigation, search

One of the purposes of the workgoup is to facilitate communication. When a workgroup is formed, its founding members need to decide how to communicate. I don't think there is one answer for how to communicate, although my preference is on WE. Should there be a list of options, including pros&cons and examples that could be previewed? --Alison Snieckus 02:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alison brings up an important point. I think the way members communicate can be open, but I think that whatever information or decisions that are made should be included in the discussion tab of the wiki page (e.g. minutes to a meeting). This helps outsiders see the rationale as members pursue a common objective.

Bnleez (talk)16:10, 1 June 2009

I'm also in favor of general comments belonging on the discussion page. Maybe one of our first tasks for this "figuring out workgroups" workgroup should be to decide how/where we want discussions to happen. My vote is to keep thoughts and discussion in the main discussion tab, at least to start.

So how do we make this decision? Our chosen communication method should (at a minimum): 1) enable us in sharing our thoughts/opinions/ideas, 2) support our collaboration in making decisions, 3) be transparent, and 4) encourage interested others to join in (or is this last one implied by transparent). I think our experiencing this decision process for our group can help us better envision how to help other groups with this ongoing struggle.

ASnieckus (talk)06:52, 2 June 2009

I would say that a group charter would be in order. A group charter would contain all the necessary information needed as to how the group would work, expectations, etc.

Bnleez (talk)09:48, 2 June 2009

I like the idea that one of the steps for establishing a Workgroup be that the initiators (one or more community members or the subgroup members assigned from the Council) create a draft charter. Will see if I can outline a starting point for this on the page.

ASnieckus (talk)14:11, 5 June 2009

Clearly there are advantages to keeping discussions on the discussion page -- particularly from the perspective of tracking the history of the development of policy-like documents.

It's not easy (or appropriate?) to regulate something like wiki "etiquette" but also see the need to encourage transparent practice.

  • I suggest that we consider including a subsection in the guideline for workgroups document on "preferred" communication channels; and
  • In cases where discussion or ideas are located in spaces other than the relevant discussion tab, we could request that links to these discussions should be inserted on the discussion page with the proviso that only discussions (and relevant links -- eg a link to a post on the discussion list) will be taken into account for re-drafting and revisions.

Most WikiEducators would do their best to work within these communication guidelines.

Mackiwg (talk)10:31, 2 June 2009