+1
Thanks!!
Andy Dale
ooTao
Phone: 877-213-7935
Fax: 877-213-7935
i-name: =Andy.Dale
http://public.xdi.org/=andy.dale
***************************************************************************
If you don't have your iName yet use this link:
http://2idi.com/registrar/index.html?referral_code=ootao
***************************************************************************
+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:]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:46 PM
To: Fen Labalme; Barnhill William
Cc:
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:]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:17 AM
To: Barnhill William
Cc:
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
