[Theforum] Case study: Monkey Speak

[Peter-Paul Koch]

>first, i'm really stoked that you(and others) are taking interest in
>this re-org.
>
>if i rewrite what you wrote on there, is there any sort of versioning or
>anything? one prob i have with a wiki structure is that its *so*  easy to
>change what the original message may have been. i click on 'view  fully
>history', but my username( i think) doesn't work.

Don't know anything about the wiki administration, Martin usually does that
and has now appointed two or three temporary admins (of course I forgot
who).

As to rewriting it: my original idea was that anyone not agreeing with a
certain paragraph should write his own version below mine. Of course if your
whole proposal is radically different from mine you should write a new page
(CaseStudyII ?).

I'd like us to have several versions to choose from in a week or so.
Several people have given good feedback (but not, of course, rewritten any
paragraphs):

Matt: Who creates this document? The group or the SC?
Dean: Number of members too small (I said 7 max)
Madhu: Restructuring categories is an IA question, apart from a necessary
database restructuring
Isaac: Mail should be handled by Monkey Hear
Dan: Mail should be handled by whichever group is appropriate, add a select
to the form to choose the subject of the mail
Many people: Get rid of the 'Monkey' names

So people disagree with Moneky Speak's scope, name and number of members,
but not with the general outline of how it should work (including detailed
bits about electing members, access policy and so on).
In addition, the scope of Monkey Speak is far smaller than I thought. I
assumed restructuring the categories would be an internal decision: not so.
It would also involve Monkey See and Monkey Run. I never considered this,
but it is of course correct.

So what's next? I'm willing to spend some time on this, but I can't do
everything. That's why I hoped people would rewrite parts of my study if
they disagree.

Although people on theforum are very good at criticizing detailed points
(and are usually totally right), what I'm missing is broad outlines. Now, if
I want to know what theforum thinks about the general issues I have to wade
through dozens of mails, summarize them and try to extract the ideas, which,
while good, often treat only one small point and forget about related
issues.

Maybe we should create a special committee to draw up Monkey Group (or
whatever name) charters, subject to a forum vote? The groups themselves can
change the charters, of course, but we have to start somewhere, give some
sort of clue as to how the organization should develop, so that people have
something to agree or disagree with.

Anyone in? Anyone totally opposed?

ppk

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.