[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] A proposal for the F2F
+1. Seems like a reasonable way to focus conversation and stay on track. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:17 AM To: Barnhill William Cc: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [xdi] A proposal for the F2F Link here: http://diac.cpsr.org/cgi-bin/diac02/pattern.cgi/public?pattern_id=9 I won't be at the TC :( but I do approve of such mechanisms. As Doug Schuler (from CPSR) hosts the link, it reminds me of the process I've used many times for NVCD* consensus building: Agenda building: list topics and negotiate time allotted for each Facilitator: keeps the agenda moving people may negotiate for more time on a topic during discussion Scribe: records decisions Vibes watcher: watches for people who aren't speaking up Having such roles clearly defined from the outset can really speed things up. Anyway, for this non-participant, I'm a +1. =Fen * NVCD = Non-Violent Civil Disobedience Barnhill William wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd imagine that like last year's F2F we'll need to be making a lot of > decisions. I'd like to propose using a particular tool to help > speed/capture those decisions. Not sure of the name, but I call it a > decision wheel. Steve Cisler invented AFAIK. Below is a pasted > description of the tool. To see a quick vote on whether to use it or > not, I'd propose everyone respond to this message with a simple message > body with a simple +1 (For), -1 (Against), or 0 (Ambivalent). I'll > tabulate the results, or Marc can for impartiality :) (Trust me, I'm not > THAT tied to the tool). > > My quick pattern for using this: > > Name: Decision Wheel Consensus > > Context: A F2F group with a whiteboard, or online group with blackboard > capability, needs to make several decisions. > > Forces: > > ..Decision time is limited > > ..Number of decisions can be discussed at once > > ..Shared vision must be captured > > Solution: > > ..Pick a moderator > > ..Draw a center for the wheel > > .. For every decision to be made, create a decision axis > > .. draw two spokes in opposite directions from the center, ideally > in a different color for each decision > > .. Label the spokes with the quality that needs deciding (color, > centralization, attributes Vs elements) > > .. Label one spoke with the value at one end of quality spectrum > (all elements) > > .. Label opposing spoke the value at other end of spectrum (All > attributes on single element) > > .. For each member have them plot on the decision axis where their views > are, and make a brief case for why > > .. Once all members have gone, let any member that wishes change their > plot points, and briefly state why > > .. Repeat until for each axis a consensus has been reached by tightly > grouping plot points, or until no member wishes to change their mind. > > .. If no member wishes to change their mind, then the topic needs > discussion, or tabling until further information can be added. > > Result Context: For each decision axis a group plot point has been > created and a decision made, or a range of plot points have been > captured and the decision has been tabled until after further > discussion/new information. > > > > > > Tool description follows: > > Steve Cisler described the use of a spoked circle as a graphical > decision aid > > (see figure below). The circle represents the "space" of decisions that > must be made, while the endpoints > > of the spokes represent the two possible extremes of each decision. In > his paper on "Community > > Networks: Past and Present Thoughts." Cisler describes how the > spoked-circle approach was used by the > > Silicon Valley Public Access Link project. The upright spoke, for > example, might be labeled "system > > architecture" and the location of the small circle on the spoke near the > "distributed" endpoint depicts the > > decision to use a distributed architecture instead of a centralized one. > A point on the middle of a spoke > > would indicate an intermediate position between the views represented by > the endpoints. > > There are no stringent requirements as to how to use the tool. Simply > identifying the spokes can be an > > important first step, as the spokes clearly show which decisions are to > be made. It may not be critical to > > determine the exact location of the decision. In some cases, a group may > decide to postpone a decision, > > but it is a group decision, nevertheless, that ultimately must be made > with others in the group. If a > > difference of opinion hasn't been resolved - for example, whether an > online resource should be free to > > use or whether there should be fees - the organizers could say, "We're > still trying to resolve this. Which > > approach do /you /think is best?" The tool can also be used as a way to > explain compromises or transitional > > circumstances by showing the current point in relation to the direction > along which the developers plan to > > proceed. For example, when the system is launched it might be deemed > necessary to charge users a small > > fee, but ultimately the system would be expected to be free to use. It > might also be necessary to begin > > with text-only displays, but with a commitment to move to more advanced > graphical displays later. > > -- Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]