Difference between revisions of "User talk:Martin"

Revision as of 12:32, 14 July 2007

In general I am a student of “process”. I try to observe and understand what really makes things tick. This has relevance to transparency, democracy, and empowerment issues. Sometimes the most important things for the populace to know, are things that some relatively “few” people within the populace don’t want others to know. When students of process are observing and trying to understand your process, they risk being viewed as a pain in the neck – it’s not an activity where one should expect to get lots of “high fives”.

Some subjects that catch my interest are listed below:

Topsoil

Process Transparency

RiskParticipation

BetterAutomation

consensus polls

Martin, love your energy on this. Our current focus is on getting lots of examples of small consensus polls that succeed. Personally, I think that's what's needed to get to your step#1, of a foundation agreeign to try this crazy thig. We need a track record. Something we could use help on right now is the consensus poll tour. Interested in taking a look and either editing directly or providing feedback? Portal:ConsensusPolls Thanks! TedErnst

Ted, in terms of providing feedback about consensus polling I just did this at ConsensusPollingAwareness. There I bring up some strategic issues, such as whether a track record of small consensus polls will actually translate or be reflective of polling success process dynamics at much larger scales (million plus). Also in this section when I mention deep pockets it is not in the sense of foundations - I suspect they will be a long shot in contrast to individuals or corporations with deep pockets (from my experiences I have learned that nonprofit philanthropic foundations tend to be risk averse).

Martin, even if we don't need more of a track record before someone with deep pockets were willing to fund a huge consensus poll, the method is still largely untested. I don't feel confident yet that we have enough people that fully understand the process to make it work yet on a massive scale. I definitely think the method is sound, but the people to work the method are still lacking, and the people with the experience facilitating the method are definitely lacking. We have a ways to go yet in integrating consensus polling into the fabric of how AboutUs gets its work done. We're learning a ton, even on a small scale, about what it will take to make this work on a large scale. For example, when someone signs up to participate, they need to give an email address and set their preferences about how often they want to be contacted, all the way from "every change" to "only when the DoneTimer starts", etc. We also have found recently that we need a way to set someone's status to "inactive" if they don't respond after a certain amount of time. We're definitely moving forward. The tour is on the AboutUs company priorities for this two weeks. I'm working hard to get it done. I really appreciate your feedback! peace, TedErnst

Revision as of 04:48, 14 July 2007 (view source) Martin (talk \| contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 12:32, 14 July 2007 (view source) TedErnst (talk \| contribs) (→‎consensus polls) Newer edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Ted, in terms of providing feedback about consensus polling I just did this at ConsensusPollingAwareness. There I bring up some strategic issues, such as whether a track record of small consensus polls will actually translate or be reflective of polling success process dynamics at much larger scales (million plus). Also in this section when I mention deep pockets it is not in the sense of foundations - I suspect they will be a long shot in contrast to individuals or corporations with deep pockets (from my experiences I have learned that nonprofit philanthropic foundations tend to be risk averse).		Ted, in terms of providing feedback about consensus polling I just did this at ConsensusPollingAwareness. There I bring up some strategic issues, such as whether a track record of small consensus polls will actually translate or be reflective of polling success process dynamics at much larger scales (million plus). Also in this section when I mention deep pockets it is not in the sense of foundations - I suspect they will be a long shot in contrast to individuals or corporations with deep pockets (from my experiences I have learned that nonprofit philanthropic foundations tend to be risk averse).
		+
		+	Martin, even if we don't need more of a track record before someone with deep pockets were willing to fund a huge consensus poll, the method is still largely untested. I don't feel confident yet that we have enough people that fully understand the process to make it work yet on a massive scale. I definitely think the method is sound, but the people to work the method are still lacking, and the people with the experience facilitating the method are definitely lacking. We have a ways to go yet in integrating consensus polling into the fabric of how AboutUs gets its work done. We're learning a ton, even on a small scale, about what it will take to make this work on a large scale. For example, when someone signs up to participate, they need to give an email address and set their preferences about how often they want to be contacted, all the way from "every change" to "only when the DoneTimer starts", etc. We also have found recently that we need a way to set someone's status to "inactive" if they don't respond after a certain amount of time. We're definitely moving forward. The tour is on the AboutUs company priorities for this two weeks. I'm working hard to get it done. I really appreciate your feedback! peace, [[User:TedErnst\|TedErnst]]