Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
>
were“hammeredoutinopendiscussion?”,ordoyoumeanafewpeople
(or one person) listened
>
to the group's thoughts and then said “this is what we're going to do?”
(And thanks for sharing
>
that experience.)
Well, there was a core of 6-8 people who drafted the formal 'Request for
Discussion' msgs, and kind of coordinated the discussion, but something
over 175 people commented on various parts of the proposals, and we
wentthrough5draftstogetthe6thandfinalonethatwasactuallyvoted
on.Thecoregroupmostlywassilentandletothersmakecomments,sug-
gestions,etc.,respondingwithrevisedwordings,askingquestionsonlyto
clarifypoints,etc.Thiswashowwediscoveredweneededtomakeasep-
arate group for girl scouts.
So I'd say it was very much a large group consensus building activity, not
a small clique just saying 'here's what we'll do'.
B.
~
>
OneofthethingsIseemtobehearingisthereisanaturalevolutionary
process going on with
>
communities much like any community (in RL) that we might belong
to. In some groups, the
>
normshavechanged.Inothers,membersaremovingontonewgroups
(beginning with extensive
>
back- channel discussions that lead to new groups), hence the old
groups sound as if they are
>
splitting up into separate factions.
I have seen it happen both ways. A few will break off from the original
group in order to facilitate what they perceive to be “their” purpose. You
know,sometimesIthinktheproblemsimplylieswithsemantics.Partsof
agrouparen'tcomingfromthesameframeofreferenceasotherpartsof
the group; thus, even though they are basically saying the same thing,
they aren't understanding each other.
>
Are we saying that on-line groups go through the same evolutionary
process that any other group
>
we might belong to does? Do “charters”
(or maybe FAQs is a better word) get rewritten? Has
>
anyone been a member of a group that changed its understanding of
itself? (Forgive me, but my
>
mind has wandered to the Monty Python knights that “used to be the
knights that said neat” and
