|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Thread
started on 17/12/2006 23:55
Private
At the first CRAG tele-conference, we decided to remove links to a “network” group because its name, purpose and proposed membership was poorly defined, making it confusing to new users (including ourselves!). So should there be any website space between local groups’ spaces and the totally public forum? What would it be for, and who would be its members? What should it be called? »
login to post comments
Strategy/steering?written on 18/12/2006 18:15
Actually, if it is for the strategy/steering group – then “strategy” or “steering” would be fine for the group name. They would at least describe its purpose in a way that “network” does not. » login to post comments
posting on strategy issueswritten on 8/1/2007 12:21
Looking at the posts on ‘forums’ and ‘network’, they seem to overlap a lot, and I think it will be difficult to define how to separate ‘strategy’ thinking from other general issues. Also, by having a small low-profile ‘network’ area for strategy, we will risk posters on the ‘forums’ area missing key information and probably duplicating contributions. The peculiar thing about CRAGging is that it’s rooted in a very practical endeavour – therefore, a lot of the strategy issues will be closely connected to and affected by lots of mundane and technical information. If we try to disconnect this, it will be clumsy, and some of us will have a whole picture and some of us won’t. This will be confusing and encourage an elite section of ‘thinkers and planners’, which i thought we’d agreed at the 5 Nov meeting we didn’t want. At the moment I agree the postings are quite confusing. I’ve not been able to relocate some postings which I know I’ve seen previously. I think the key is to have clearer rules about how to sign-post threads, and more sub-division of categories if necessary, so that it’s easy to organise them. And an explanation of how users should submit postings and how to find other postings. I also think it would be useful to have some kind of index for previous threads and postings. Maybe we already have this but I have not found it, so if you take me as your average not very IT-literate person… Btw, I think the new improved website is wonderful overall! » login to post comments
I totally agree that havingwritten on 15/1/2007 15:22
I totally agree that having too many layers just causes confusion – especially where the boundaries are not clear cut. So, the best way forward is just to have everything in the fora – although it may be sensible to keep draft strategy documents and the like set to private to prevent them being indexed by Google (as John has pointed out). This approach will do wonders for our transparency, and steers away from elites and planning committees – so I’m quite happy with it. The upcoming design has a tag browser built in to each group and the fora, which should act as a decent index. I agree that the help docs are due for a rewrite. » login to post comments
|
Low-profile group for CRAGs strategy and decisions only
david
My own opinion is that we probably do need this space, but that it should be relatively low-profile (although not hidden) and open to those who are local CRAGs members and who want to get involved in national CRAGs issues (publicity, strategy, website). We are already having CRAGs strategy meetings and we need somewhere to put minutes and note conference and meeting times (perhaps also photos and votes) that don’t get lost in the morass of forum threads.
How this would fit in with the rest of the site I’m not sure – but my feeling is that it should be reachable by those wanting to put in extra work over-and-above their local CRAG, but should not obstruct the flow of the main site. Possibly, the name is not over-important if the group has quite a small membership.