Difference between revisions of "WhoWeAre:Stage1Status"

NotYet ---------- NotYet

ActiveMembers

Staff

YES ---------- YES

ActiveMembers

1. Di (ActiveMember)

   YES I think it's important to define WhoWeAre so that we have a real sense of belonging and so that new people can understand us. Thanks for helping me with this Ted. I'm not even sure what Stage 1 Consensus poll is. If it's simple; that we need to better define our community WhoWeAre, then Yes edit

   Discussion

   Hi Di, glad to have you participating! Stage 1 is about the purple box. Everything outside the boxes will eventually make it's way inside the boxes, but for now, stage 1, we're just dealing with the purple box. If the page itself isn't making that clear, and it's more clear now, could you fix up the page so it's more clear? And if it's not more clear, let's keep talking so we can all be clear together, okay? peace, TedErnst | talk 05:52, 27 September 2007 (PDT)

2. Llywrch (ActiveMember)

   YES Putting the matter we are discussing/voting on was what I was looking for. (I would have done it myself if I had known the markup language to produce it.) Thanks Ted. -- Llywrch 11:05, 24 September 2007 (PDT) edit

   Discussion

   Cool. :-) TedErnst | talk 02:04, 25 September 2007 (PDT)

3. Bryan Daugherty (activemember)

   YES I'm comfortable with this. edit

   Discussion
4. Julie Caldwell (ActiveMember)

   YES Looks great, ready for stage 3 edit

   Discussion

   
   

5. Diana Demarest (ActiveMember)

   YES Sounds good to me. edit

   Discussion

   
   

6. Misha (ActiveMember)

   YES I like the initial concept, but would like to see stricter policy against adult content and inappropriate content like the pedophilia stuff so we don;t get overrun by pedophiles making arguments and have some way to justify the tagging of their sites. edit

   Discussion

   I like everything I see so far. Of course I orginally came into this community only because I accidentally accessed some terrible exploitation of children on this site, which I had previously veiwed as a legitimate and decent environment and not a place where I might have accidentally viewed child porn. Most people already know that my experience and volunteer work tagging these pedophile pages has caused alot of pedophiles to come into the community and argue their point of view as to why these pages need not be tagged as adult and why looking at these pictures is helpful to pedophiles, etc. In my opinion, Aboutus is a place to have people gather information and use it in their search for information. By making the pedophile pages open to review by pedophiles (who are basically encouraging pedos to continu being attracted to kids and not seek help or make some bogus claim like looking at scantilly clad children helps pedos) makes this site a place attractive to pedophiles and contributes to the spreading of their misinformation about what is legal and what is not and that pedophilia is a "normal" sexual preference just like homosexuality. Whatever opinion anyone has about this topic, I feel this is not the appropriate place to debate it. If so, then all the pedophile activists are going to be here day and night causing trouble reversing the adult tags and so on. Maybe to mention how this is not an appropriate place for adult content and making stricter rules so that pedophiles can't throw the TOS in our faces like I can post whatever I want would be more acceptable in my opinion. I think they need to know they are not welcome here unless they want to admit the stuff is adult content and possibly illegal and they will leave the pages alone. Bleh, I hate to keep repeating myslef, but the things I have seen during this process have been so disturbing and horrific I cannot fathom allowing these people a space to spout their lies and try to attract childre to their sites. I would just like to see more inthe WHO WE ARE state that this is not a place for this. period. Thanks for listening. Misha

7. Fridemar (ActiveMember)

   YES The general frame is established. Why losing time, that we need for stage 2? edit

   Discussion

   Democratic Process on Identity- Building at AboutUs.org

   Consensus on GoThresholds and DoneTimer

   Ted: Fridemar, the most important reason for Stage 1, in my opinion, is to allow the community to set the GoThresholds and DoneTimer for Stage 2, rather than having it imposed upon them by me or you or anyone else.

   Fridemar: Ted, this is a great feature within the community of AboutUs, I have never seen at any other place. Participation in creating the strategical Meta-Parameters of the community, that define the process of decision making itself.

   Identity by Expectation-Setting in the Projects:WhoWeAre

   Ted: I'm also really interested in the Projects:WhoWeAre task about expectation-setting. How do we convey that this will likely take months, that people are welcome to come and go as time and interest come and go, and that it will all be okay, that we will be able to see progress and thus not become discouraged? Are you interested in working on that question?

   Fridemar: Creating Identity to me is (philosophically speaking) a never ending game. There are two forces in the play to be reconciled:

   • embracing as much as possible and
   • selecting appropriately (as self-organizing process ) to reduce frictions, (caused by incompatible subsystems), thus caring for healthy growth.

   As each engaged member brings in their own energies, this is an evolutionary process. Practically speaking, we need an identity to be recognizable and attractive for marketing AboutUs and its engaged members. My task will be to create as much compatibility as possible.

   As you see, I've started to work on this question :-) fridemar 12:57, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

   Ted: Great! TedErnst

   Fridemar: For the mutual benefit, I blog our small conversation to the SocialCommonWealth g as a Permalink democratic-process-on-identity-building.html. fridemar 16:16, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

   
   

8. MartinPfahler (ActiveMember)

   YES Fine with me edit

   Discussion

   
   

9. DrewMyers (ActiveMember)

   YES I am comfortable with the framework enough to proceed. edit

   Discussion

   
   

10. ChristopheGDucamp (ActiveMember)

    YES still enthusiast on this framing even if I lack time. edit

    Discussion
11. Nathan (ActiveMember)

    YES I'm fine with it. edit

    Discussion

    
    

Staff

1. Chris Babson (Staff)

   YES Looks good. edit

   Discussion
2. Asma Khan (AboutUsStaff)

   YES It seems to lead the process towards the right path,as we declare the solution pieces, stage 3 would be automatically explained. We can declare the solution pieces by elaborating AboutUsValues and OurWork so that our goals become more clear edit

   Discussion
3. TedErnst (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I am happy with this framing. edit

   Discussion

   
   

4. Obed Suhail (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Looks good. edit

   Discussion

   
   

5. Julia (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I'm comfortable with the framing for the initial process. edit

   Discussion
6. Asad Butt (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Stage 1 document works for me.

   Discussion

   
   

7. ArifIqbal (AboutUsStaff)

   YES The document looks good now and I think its ready for the next stage. edit

   Discussion

   Arif, could you say more about this? Is it still unclear? Ted Ernst | talk 09:30, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

   Arif, I agree with you that Stage 1 was a bit vague. Now we have made some effort to refactor WhoWeAre to make it more clear. How do you feel about it? Is there anything that still needs to be worked on? Asad

8. Umair Tamim (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Stage 1 seemed very vague to me because I felt that until we've defined what WhoWeAre is going to address/achieve (i.e. will it define how we work, etc.), we can't move forward. But I get it now that that's to come at Stage2. So I'm good to go! edit

   Discussion

   Umair, could you say more about the kind of "direction" you're looking for? peace, Ted Ernst | talk

   Umair, I agree with you that Stage 1 was a bit vague. Now we have made some effort to refactor WhoWeAre to make it more clear. How do you feel about it? Is there anything that still needs to be worked on? Asad

9. Brandon CS Sanders (AboutUsStaff)

   YES Looks great! Nice work so far everyone :-) edit

   Discussion
10. Ray King (AboutUsStaff)

    YES Ok I'm on board edit

    Discussion

    Hi Ray, I made a couple of changes to WhoWeAre. Is it more clear now? TedErnst | talk 13:08, 26 September 2007 (PDT)

    Ray, what outcome(s) do you want?

    I would be happy if at the end of this process we had a Mission Statement that we were proud of and that wasn't a Camel. On Values, we currently have a bunch of them with various levels of description, what will this exercise do for those values? - Ray | talk

    Hi Ray, did you see the changes made to WhoWeAre Stage 1 document. How do you feel about it? Does it address your concerns now? If not, please let us know how we can improve it further or you can directly edit the document to reflect your thoughts.

11. John Stanton (AboutUs Staff)

    YES Ok with this stage. edit

    Discussion
12. Kasey (AboutUsStaff)

    YES Stage 1 looks good. edit

    Discussion