[Koha] LibLime responses to some of yesterdays postings

[Jared Camins-Esakov]

Chris, et. al.,

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Chris Cormack <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz>
 wrote:
>
> The wiki is designed for collborative editing, it is does so in a much
> better way than IRC can. Once we have a lot of ideas and indeed a
> summary, like you talk about, is exactly what we are aiming for. Then
> we could have a much more productive meeting on IRC.


For what it's worth, I would prefer to see this on the wiki for a couple of
reasons:

1) I'm not sure exactly what we'd be talking about. I only got half-way
through the book I was reading on non-profit management. If all the ideas
were on the wiki, I would be able to read them and take the time to figure
out what they *really* mean.

2) transparency! Sure, a transcript is available, but what if you weren't in
the meeting? Slogging through a conversation between 50 people who type 100
wpm and getting the gist, especially if you don't quite understand the
issues in the first place, is going to be rough. Moreover, wikis are better
understood, I think, than IRC. I have never had a library colleague say
"hey, let's use IRC for collaboration," but "hey, let's use a wiki" is
pretty common.

3) arranging IRC meetings for such an international group is difficult. I
can't make a lot of IRC meetings due to the time (which means probably no
one from PTFS/LL could, either), and those I can make often are impossible
for others due to time. Even when everyone can agree on a time, it's still
difficult to get everyone on IRC at the same time. Speaking for myself, life
often intervenes.

4) instant messaging is great for tactical discussions, but not so great for
strategic discussions. There's a reason for Robert's Rules of Order.

5) we can still use IRC and the mailing list to ask for clarifications as
we're trying to edit the wiki and make clear our ideas. We could not use the
wiki and the mailing list fast enough to get feedback if we were trying to
clarify our ideas during an IRC meeting.

I would agree with Chris that "proposal" isn't the right word for this.
While I could imagine there ultimately being "proposals" on the wiki, it
seems to me that right now we aren't even all sure that we're talking about
the same things. At the very least, *I* am not entirely sure that I am
talking about the same thing as everyone else (and I'm not entirely sure
every message I have seen on this subject has been addressing the same
underlying issues).

Since LibLime seems to have a clear idea of what they would like to see for
the Koha community (wrt a foundation), could I request that you (Amy
DeGroff, Patrick Jones, John Yokley, or another, on behalf of LibLime)
summarize your suggestions on the wiki so that people like me can understand
the issues that you see? Anywhere on the wiki would be helpful, but I
suggest adding it to the wiki under
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Koha_Foundation since that
seems to me a logical place to put this discussion.

I look forward to a fruitful discussion on the future of Koha- the sooner we
can put conflict behind us, the sooner we can go back to what we do best (in
my case, bibliography).

Regards,
Jared Camins-Esakov

-- 
Jared Camins-Esakov
Freelance bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445
(e-mail) jcamins at cpbibliography.com
(web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/attachments/20100916/baaed061/attachment.htm