OK what I get from this post is that rather than chipping away at low hanging fruit to keep moving forward, we’re trying to do a complete system wide redesign of how the space runs.
From working in Tech long enough, this doesn’t strike me as the effective play
Can we sit and have a 5 min chat on what has been talked about before and proposals on assistance the techs might appreciate. Then I might be the person to help get that ball rolling.
No. That’s fixed…it was that somehow the user ‘makerspace’ wasn’t being recognised as activated. All working as before…fingers crossed
I was just checking with Petra where she got the tech names from, as they’re different from the techs groups as shown on Discourse (which are pretty much up to date…with the odd AWOL)
These threads are always packed with great ideas. To get them actioned the best move is to get them knocked into something we can discuss at a members meeting… then get them to a members’ meeting. It’s inevitable that they’ll get Lost In Discourse (LID) otherwise
If they relate to a particular tech area then communicate with that tech team – for example I believe @Clix has already approached a member for admin support…it might work to have anyone doing that contactable as a Discourse group, I don’t know…it’s certainly fits with ‘good enough for now, safe enough to try’ if that’s what they want to do, and doesn’t really need a members meeting to discuss it…
Sometimes obviously good ideas/valid points just get picked up from these threads…but no one should count on that
There are a lot of reasons that Discourse isn’t suitable to be a long open members meeting. The major one being that it’s impossible to judge the reaction to poropasals online…and very easy to do it in person. Another is bandwidth: we can’t deal with every issue as soon as someone types it on Discourse…critical issues take priority…other stuff needs to take its turn
EDIT: maybe this needs a ‘how to’ post
Exactly.
The Governance Review II is system wide review.
We shouldn’t let that get in the way of a Tech Review.
I think though you need to be sure that you are joining the right project.
There is no Tech Review currently apart from the positive feedback in this post.
I’m trying to say, badly maybe, that it would be good if someone takes that on. Separately from Governance Review.
I support both reviews and support them working separately.
I hope that makes it clearer and not more unclear
This is not meant as a criticism but just information about another way this can be seen / done.
Discourse allows discussions to be handled in the open transparently. It’s great for communicating an idea to the whole membership.
Having discussions in private means nothing is written down, lots of people don’t know what’s happening and projects simple get lost.
Discussions in meetings and between members could be put online with updates so people can see progress and refer to it.
It can be a way of having opening and good communication.
It’s also good for avoiding misunderstandings about what is happening.
I think our issues are more about a ‘let’s get it done’ attitude that leaves many members feeling left out, confused and disenfranchised.
This is why companies around the world use these methods to help get things done.
I think culturally we have a fear here of project management as a tool for interfering, controlling and slowing things down.
It’s intention is the polar opposite.
Most organisations prosper from good communication and strategy with people leading projects and communicating things to the masses.
I think we would benefit from this.
Off topic?
If members are willing to try new strategies isn’t it worth trying them out?
Addition: