RE: [xdi] A proposal for the F2F

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

+1. I'm not sure we have so much a high quantity of decisions to make so
much as a few very high quality ones. But this tool should help nonetheless.

Bill, you're appointed to guide us through it in person quickly when we
start.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:46 PM
To: Fen Labalme; Barnhill William
Cc: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
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