Thinking about communication process

Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Alison,

Yip --- progress is looking good.

The skills table is a great start. Thinking a little wider here that is the skills specification for future workgroups perhaps it would be better to invite the volunteer members of the workgroup to write a succinct statement of their relevant skills pertaining to the workgroup -- no more than a sentence with a link to their userpage. So for example in my case I could write something like:

Founder of WikiEducator, elected member of Council with governance, senior level management and leadership experience -- link to User page goes here.

In this way volunteers can identify their relevant experience and interests in a more flexible way and readers and reviewers can quickly scan the experience of the group.

Coming back to a point which I think you made earlier -- we should think about clarifying roles of workgroup participants:

eg Convenor / co-convenor -- responsible for:

  • Convening and facilitating workgroup discussions
  • Ensuring the development of a charter in accordance with the guidelines and recommended criteria
  • Taking responsibility for regular updates on the main list
  • Taking proactive initiative to ensure that volunteers are kept up to date (eg personal email, reminders of deadlines etc.)
  • Prepare final submission of the work group proposal for Council (in the case of community-wide workgroups).

Volunteer participants

  • Regularly visit the work group page
  • Contribute to discussions and draft reviews of the workgroup outputs
  • Aim to achieve consensus on relevant items

Other roles? Thoughts?

Cheers Wayne

Mackiwg (talk)10:08, 2 July 2009


Your suggestion to have each participant include a short bit summarizing their relevant skills and experience was my first thought also. I even created a test layout, but wondered if a more concise display (2-way table) would be better.

I've got both versions included now (I reset your suggestion with the linked name first instead of last). Not sure both are needed -- it seems like overkill, but I'll leave it for now and see what others think.

Agree that we should include specification of roles. These are the only two roles that I can think of that every Workgroup would need. I'd suggest that Workgroups define additional roles as needed, recognizing that a role is a job that they want a group member to perform, not a set of skills.

I'll work on getting this info onto the page.

Best, Alison

ASnieckus (talk)12:36, 3 July 2009