> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow meeting
> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them where
> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback they
> might have about the evolution of the process.
> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> briefly).
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow meeting
> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them where
> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback they
> might have about the evolution of the process.
> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> briefly).
> Hi Alex,
> I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to show the
> video and do an update for the group.
> Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow meeting
>> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them where
>> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
>> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback they
>> might have about the evolution of the process.
>> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
>> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
>> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
>> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
>> briefly).
Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the dvd next Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it notes if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and forum in a form that at least show viability.
How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there? I've just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got anything better with Access - if so we might have something other than Excel to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Great
> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to show the
> > video and do an update for the group.
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow meeting
> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them where
> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback they
> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> >> briefly).
2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the dvd next
> Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
Great
> We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
OK
> I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it notes
> if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
feedback.
> I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and forum in
> a form that at least show viability.
Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
these.
As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
improvements thanks in part to their support.
I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
if it has improved.
> How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
etc.
I've
> just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
> anything better with Access - if so we might have something other than Excel
> to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
particularly while the interface is so undeveloped. We would also have
to set up a computer projector.
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Great
>> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to show
>> > the
>> > video and do an update for the group.
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow meeting
>> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them where
>> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
>> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback they
>> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
>> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
>> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
>> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
>> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
>> >> briefly).
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris
> see below
> Alex
> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the dvd next
> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
> Great
> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
> OK
> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it notes
> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
> feedback.
Good idea!
> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and forum in
> > a form that at least show viability.
> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
> these.
OK
> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a resolution with the first page of the poster.
> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
> improvements thanks in part to their support.
> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
> if it has improved.
Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? - sounds like a good strategy.
> > How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
> While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
> the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
> headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
> all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
> they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
> If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
> the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
> etc.
That's better that I thought. I hope we can touch base with Greg before next Thursday.
> I've
> > just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
> > anything better with Access - if so we might have something other than Excel
> > to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
> I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
> particularly while the interface is so undeveloped.
OK - but perhaps some print of a template draft wold show that info can be organised and stored? Something tangible is more convincing that a statement.
We would also have
> to set up a computer projector.
A print of the first page might be enough for them to get the idea.
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Great
> >> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to show
> >> > the
> >> > video and do an update for the group.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow meeting
> >> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them where
> >> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> >> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback they
> >> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
> >> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> >> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
> >> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
> >> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> >> >> briefly).
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris
>> see below
>> Alex
>> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the dvd
>> > next
>> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
>> Great
>> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
>> OK
>> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it
>> > notes
>> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
>> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
>> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
>> feedback.
> Good idea!
>> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and
>> > forum in
>> > a form that at least show viability.
>> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
>> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
>> these.
> OK
>> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
>> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
>> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
> OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a resolution
> with the first page of the poster.
OK
>> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
>> improvements thanks in part to their support.
>> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
>> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
>> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
>> if it has improved.
> Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? - sounds
> like a good strategy.
I'm actually now thinking that is would be good to focus on the 4 key
themes that have been developed and use the same survey forms to offer
them a private chance to comment about whether they think this is an
improvement. After presenting the video as an orientation tool for the
poster, the simplified poster and steps, the decision making process
and something of the template, I'd like to do a survey on whether they
feel those specific 4 things have improved the Co-operator from their
last exposure to it. It wont be a big deal - we'll just present these
four new elements and then do a 3min tick box survey with comment
option on those four elements as improvements.
This will give me the data I need, allow a bit of reflection on the
new elements we have just presented and give us a bit of further
feedback.
>> > How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
>> While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
>> the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
>> headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
>> all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
>> they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
>> If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
>> the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
>> etc.
> That's better that I thought. I hope we can touch base with Greg before next
> Thursday.
Yes that would be good - if we can get a working template happening we
basically will have a usable resource.
>> I've
>> > just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
>> > anything better with Access - if so we might have something other than
>> > Excel
>> > to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
>> I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
>> particularly while the interface is so undeveloped.
> OK - but perhaps some print of a template draft wold show that info can be
> organised and stored? Something tangible is more convincing that a
> statement.
OK
> We would also have
>> to set up a computer projector.
> A print of the first page might be enough for them to get the idea.
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Great
>> >> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to show
>> >> > the
>> >> > video and do an update for the group.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow
>> >> >> meeting
>> >> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them
>> >> >> where
>> >> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
>> >> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback
>> >> >> they
>> >> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
>> >> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
>> >> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
>> >> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
>> >> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
>> >> >> briefly).
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris
> See below
> alex
> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris
> >> see below
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the dvd
> >> > next
> >> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
> >> Great
> >> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
> >> OK
> >> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it
> >> > notes
> >> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
> >> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
> >> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
> >> feedback.
> > Good idea!
> >> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and
> >> > forum in
> >> > a form that at least show viability.
> >> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
> >> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
> >> these.
> > OK
> >> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
> >> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
> >> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
> > OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a resolution
> > with the first page of the poster.
> OK
> >> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
> >> improvements thanks in part to their support.
> >> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
> >> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
> >> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
> >> if it has improved.
> > Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? - sounds
> > like a good strategy.
> I'm actually now thinking that is would be good to focus on the 4 key
> themes that have been developed and use the same survey forms to offer
> them a private chance to comment about whether they think this is an
> improvement. After presenting the video as an orientation tool for the
> poster, the simplified poster and steps, the decision making process
> and something of the template, I'd like to do a survey on whether they
> feel those specific 4 things have improved the Co-operator from their
> last exposure to it. It wont be a big deal - we'll just present these
> four new elements and then do a 3min tick box survey with comment
> option on those four elements as improvements.
> This will give me the data I need, allow a bit of reflection on the
> new elements we have just presented and give us a bit of further
> feedback.
> >> > How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
> >> While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
> >> the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
> >> headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
> >> all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
> >> they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
> >> If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
> >> the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
> >> etc.
> > That's better that I thought. I hope we can touch base with Greg before next
> > Thursday.
> Yes that would be good - if we can get a working template happening we
> basically will have a usable resource.
> >> I've
> >> > just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
> >> > anything better with Access - if so we might have something other than
> >> > Excel
> >> > to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
> >> I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
> >> particularly while the interface is so undeveloped.
> > OK - but perhaps some print of a template draft wold show that info can be
> > organised and stored? Something tangible is more convincing that a
> > statement.
> OK
> > We would also have
> >> to set up a computer projector.
> > A print of the first page might be enough for them to get the idea.
> OK
> Alex
> > Chris
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Great
> >> >> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to show
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > video and do an update for the group.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow
> >> >> >> meeting
> >> >> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them
> >> >> >> where
> >> >> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> >> >> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback
> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
> >> >> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> >> >> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps if
> >> >> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of the
> >> >> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> >> >> >> briefly).
Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
1. the video
2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
activity & a basis for cooperation
4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
5. the developments in the computer template
Alex
2009/6/11 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris
>> See below
>> alex
>> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris
>> >> see below
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the
>> >> > dvd
>> >> > next
>> >> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
>> >> Great
>> >> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
>> >> OK
>> >> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it
>> >> > notes
>> >> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
>> >> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
>> >> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
>> >> feedback.
>> > Good idea!
>> >> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and
>> >> > forum in
>> >> > a form that at least show viability.
>> >> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
>> >> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
>> >> these.
>> > OK
>> >> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
>> >> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
>> >> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
>> > OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a
>> > resolution
>> > with the first page of the poster.
>> OK
>> >> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
>> >> improvements thanks in part to their support.
>> >> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
>> >> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
>> >> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
>> >> if it has improved.
>> > Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? - sounds
>> > like a good strategy.
>> I'm actually now thinking that is would be good to focus on the 4 key
>> themes that have been developed and use the same survey forms to offer
>> them a private chance to comment about whether they think this is an
>> improvement. After presenting the video as an orientation tool for the
>> poster, the simplified poster and steps, the decision making process
>> and something of the template, I'd like to do a survey on whether they
>> feel those specific 4 things have improved the Co-operator from their
>> last exposure to it. It wont be a big deal - we'll just present these
>> four new elements and then do a 3min tick box survey with comment
>> option on those four elements as improvements.
>> This will give me the data I need, allow a bit of reflection on the
>> new elements we have just presented and give us a bit of further
>> feedback.
> OK
>> >> > How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
>> >> While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
>> >> the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
>> >> headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
>> >> all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
>> >> they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
>> >> If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
>> >> the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
>> >> etc.
>> > That's better that I thought. I hope we can touch base with Greg before
>> > next
>> > Thursday.
>> Yes that would be good - if we can get a working template happening we
>> basically will have a usable resource.
>> >> I've
>> >> > just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
>> >> > anything better with Access - if so we might have something other
>> >> > than
>> >> > Excel
>> >> > to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
>> >> I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
>> >> particularly while the interface is so undeveloped.
>> > OK - but perhaps some print of a template draft wold show that info can
>> > be
>> > organised and stored? Something tangible is more convincing that a
>> > statement.
>> OK
>> > We would also have
>> >> to set up a computer projector.
>> > A print of the first page might be enough for them to get the idea.
>> OK
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> >> Alex
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Great
>> >> >> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to
>> >> >> > show
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > video and do an update for the group.
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow
>> >> >> >> meeting
>> >> >> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them
>> >> >> >> where
>> >> >> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
>> >> >> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback
>> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
>> >> >> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
>> >> >> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps
>> >> >> >> if
>> >> >> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
>> >> >> >> briefly).
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
> 1. the video
> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
> activity & a basis for cooperation
> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
> 5. the developments in the computer template
> Alex
> 2009/6/11 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris
> >> See below
> >> alex
> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> see below
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the
> >> >> > dvd
> >> >> > next
> >> >> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
> >> >> Great
> >> >> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
> >> >> OK
> >> >> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it
> >> >> > notes
> >> >> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
> >> >> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
> >> >> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
> >> >> feedback.
> >> > Good idea!
> >> >> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and
> >> >> > forum in
> >> >> > a form that at least show viability.
> >> >> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
> >> >> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
> >> >> these.
> >> > OK
> >> >> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
> >> >> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
> >> >> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
> >> > OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a
> >> > resolution
> >> > with the first page of the poster.
> >> OK
> >> >> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
> >> >> improvements thanks in part to their support.
> >> >> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
> >> >> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
> >> >> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
> >> >> if it has improved.
> >> > Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? - sounds
> >> > like a good strategy.
> >> I'm actually now thinking that is would be good to focus on the 4 key
> >> themes that have been developed and use the same survey forms to offer
> >> them a private chance to comment about whether they think this is an
> >> improvement. After presenting the video as an orientation tool for the
> >> poster, the simplified poster and steps, the decision making process
> >> and something of the template, I'd like to do a survey on whether they
> >> feel those specific 4 things have improved the Co-operator from their
> >> last exposure to it. It wont be a big deal - we'll just present these
> >> four new elements and then do a 3min tick box survey with comment
> >> option on those four elements as improvements.
> >> This will give me the data I need, allow a bit of reflection on the
> >> new elements we have just presented and give us a bit of further
> >> feedback.
> > OK
> >> >> > How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
> >> >> While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
> >> >> the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
> >> >> headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
> >> >> all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
> >> >> they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
> >> >> If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
> >> >> the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
> >> >> etc.
> >> > That's better that I thought. I hope we can touch base with Greg before
> >> > next
> >> > Thursday.
> >> Yes that would be good - if we can get a working template happening we
> >> basically will have a usable resource.
> >> >> I've
> >> >> > just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
> >> >> > anything better with Access - if so we might have something other
> >> >> > than
> >> >> > Excel
> >> >> > to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
> >> >> I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
> >> >> particularly while the interface is so undeveloped.
> >> > OK - but perhaps some print of a template draft wold show that info can
> >> > be
> >> > organised and stored? Something tangible is more convincing that a
> >> > statement.
> >> OK
> >> > We would also have
> >> >> to set up a computer projector.
> >> > A print of the first page might be enough for them to get the idea.
> >> OK
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Great
> >> >> >> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to
> >> >> >> > show
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > video and do an update for the group.
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow
> >> >> >> >> meeting
> >> >> >> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them
> >> >> >> >> where
> >> >> >> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> >> >> >> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback
> >> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
> >> >> >> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> >> >> >> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps
> >> >> >> >> if
> >> >> >> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> >> >> >> >> briefly).
The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to where people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger context.
They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For these new questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with the revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have, but could we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and pens.)
We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on the things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we would identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the importance of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a split to work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
also see below
Chris
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
> 1. the video
> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
> activity & a basis for cooperation
> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping this!?
> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority and the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting process.
> 5. the developments in the computer template
I haven't heard from Greg and am reluctant to call him again for fear he may feel pushed. Last time you mentioned Excel sounded positive in most areas. Is it something we could make work or not?
> 2009/6/11 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris
> >> See below
> >> alex
> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> see below
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the
> >> >> > dvd
> >> >> > next
> >> >> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
> >> >> Great
> >> >> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
> >> >> OK
> >> >> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post it
> >> >> > notes
> >> >> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
> >> >> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
> >> >> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and get
> >> >> feedback.
> >> > Good idea!
> >> >> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template and
> >> >> > forum in
> >> >> > a form that at least show viability.
> >> >> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
> >> >> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
> >> >> these.
> >> > OK
> >> >> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives the
> >> >> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
> >> >> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
> >> > OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a
> >> > resolution
> >> > with the first page of the poster.
> >> OK
> >> >> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
> >> >> improvements thanks in part to their support.
> >> >> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
> >> >> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real way
> >> >> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to and
> >> >> if it has improved.
> >> > Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? - sounds
> >> > like a good strategy.
> >> I'm actually now thinking that is would be good to focus on the 4 key
> >> themes that have been developed and use the same survey forms to offer
> >> them a private chance to comment about whether they think this is an
> >> improvement. After presenting the video as an orientation tool for the
> >> poster, the simplified poster and steps, the decision making process
> >> and something of the template, I'd like to do a survey on whether they
> >> feel those specific 4 things have improved the Co-operator from their
> >> last exposure to it. It wont be a big deal - we'll just present these
> >> four new elements and then do a 3min tick box survey with comment
> >> option on those four elements as improvements.
> >> This will give me the data I need, allow a bit of reflection on the
> >> new elements we have just presented and give us a bit of further
> >> feedback.
> > OK
> >> >> > How did you find Greg's Excel template - was anything useful there?
> >> >> While the interface of course needs a LOT of work to be usable I think
> >> >> the basic technologies were passable although I'm not sure if the
> >> >> headings option (where heading just become a list next to the jobs) is
> >> >> all that great and the questions are not coming up one at a time -
> >> >> they are all there from the start. It is a bit slow and clumsy also.
> >> >> If it was all we could manage it could work if Greg sorted the bugs in
> >> >> the technology and we set up instructions and properly number things
> >> >> etc.
> >> > That's better that I thought. I hope we can touch base with Greg before
> >> > next
> >> > Thursday.
> >> Yes that would be good - if we can get a working template happening we
> >> basically will have a usable resource.
> >> >> I've
> >> >> > just left a message on Greg's answering machine asking if he has got
> >> >> > anything better with Access - if so we might have something other
> >> >> > than
> >> >> > Excel
> >> >> > to show them. Hopefully he will get back to me.
> >> >> I'm not sure that showing them more than the third poster is necessary
> >> >> particularly while the interface is so undeveloped.
> >> > OK - but perhaps some print of a template draft wold show that info can
> >> > be
> >> > organised and stored? Something tangible is more convincing that a
> >> > statement.
> >> OK
> >> > We would also have
> >> >> to set up a computer projector.
> >> > A print of the first page might be enough for them to get the idea.
> >> OK
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:52:39 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Great
> >> >> >> 2009/6/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > I've spoken to Louise and she will get back to me with a date to
> >> >> >> > show
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > video and do an update for the group.
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:03:42 -0700
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I'm thinking it would be really good to do a follow
> >> >> >> >> meeting
> >> >> >> >> with the over 50s to do a showing of the video and to show them
> >> >> >> >> where
> >> >> >> >> we have gotten to (thanks in part to their use of it) with the
> >> >> >> >> development of the process. It would be good to get any feedback
> >> >> >> >> they
> >> >> >> >> might have about the evolution of the process.
> >> >> >> >> Do you think you could talk to Louise about another meeting (If
> >> >> >> >> nothing else I think they will be keen to see the video). Perhaps
> >> >> >> >> if
> >> >> >> >> we shoot for mid to late June we can aim to have this stage of
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> posters development sorted by then to re-present to them (if only
> >> >> >> >> briefly).
2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex
> The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to where
> people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger context.
> They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its
> technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For these new
> questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with the
> revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have, but could
> we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and pens.)
Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a stronger
context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last time.
The difference in the process could be explained.
I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done that
with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the video
I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more I
think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift in
step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
promised.
The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
straight forward.
The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building on.
We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm sure
they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they are
up to with it.
The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
seen and explained (with both posters visible)
The points in the decision making process are also points that can be
explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of the
process
...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms - I
think we have already got the advantage of their experience there and
going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily make
the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the video
and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
poster (thanks to their support).
> We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on the
> things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we would
> identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the importance
> of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a split to
> work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot any
aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't think
they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
meaningful feedback.
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
>> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
>> 1. the video
>> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
>> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
>> activity & a basis for cooperation
>> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
> Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping this!?
The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context of
effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess a
problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be seen
as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group supposed
to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not really
an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with the
description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
>> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
> and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority and
> the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting process.
>> 5. the developments in the computer template
> I haven't heard from Greg and am reluctant to call him again for fear he may
> feel pushed. Last time you mentioned Excel sounded positive in most areas.
> Is it something we could make work or not?
like you I'm waiting to see if the access application is any better
before I invest too much time thinking about excel because there are a
number of elements I don't like including the arrangement with
headings and the way you land in a cells anywhere you click on the
application - It certainly isn't everything we would want it to be but
I think if nothing better was available we could make it work. If Greg
ironed the bugs out and we were able to re-introduce the sequenced
development of the steps (which Greg neglected in his last draft for
some reason) and we added the instructions to each step and the
printing option worked out it could come together.
>> 2009/6/11 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris
>> >> See below
>> >> alex
>> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> see below
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the
>> >> >> > dvd
>> >> >> > next
>> >> >> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
>> >> >> Great
>> >> >> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
>> >> >> OK
>> >> >> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > notes
>> >> >> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
>> >> >> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
>> >> >> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and
>> >> >> get
>> >> >> feedback.
>> >> > Good idea!
>> >> >> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > forum in
>> >> >> > a form that at least show viability.
>> >> >> Yes that would be good. The new Silent Brainstorm poster shows the
>> >> >> decision making and refers to the forum - we could briefly explain
>> >> >> these.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> As for the template the third poster is dedicated to it and gives
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> key benefits of using it in dot point poster form. We could also
>> >> >> briefly explain this and mention the developments with Greg.
>> >> > OK - I'll check it out more now that we seem to be coming to a
>> >> > resolution
>> >> > with the first page of the poster.
>> >> OK
>> >> >> I was hoping to present all these things as well as the video as
>> >> >> improvements thanks in part to their support.
>> >> >> I was then wanting to quickly use the same survey to re-assess the
>> >> >> seven key points. This would help my uni work and is the only real
>> >> >> way
>> >> >> to get tangible feedback on where they think the process is up to
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> if it has improved.
>> >> > Yep - do you mean that you would review the feedback with them? -
>> >> > sounds
>> >> > like a good strategy.
>> >> I'm actually now thinking that is would be good to focus on the 4 key
>> >> themes that have been developed and use the same survey forms to offer
>> >> them a private chance to comment about whether they think this is an
>> >> improvement. After presenting the video as an orientation tool for the
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris
> see below
> alex
> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex
> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to where
> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger context.
> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its
> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For these new
> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with the
> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have, but could
> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and pens.)
> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a stronger
> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last time.
> The difference in the process could be explained.
> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done that
> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the video
> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more I
> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift in
> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
> promised.
OK
> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
> straight forward.
OK
> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building on.
Yep
> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm sure
> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they are
> up to with it.
OK
> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
> The points in the decision making process are also points that can be
> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of the
> process
> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
OK
> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms - I
> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there and
> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily make
> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the video
> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
> poster (thanks to their support).
> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on the
> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we would
> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the importance
> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a split to
> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot any
> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't think
> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
> meaningful feedback.
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
> >> 1. the video
> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping this!?
> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context of
> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess a
> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be seen
> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group supposed
> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not really
> an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
> situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with the
> description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
Yes that's true. However I wonder how people would proceed if we DID just leave them to it after giving every encouragement and support for discussion and a process for really hearing each other, especially the minority voice? If we were to say something like discussion is better than voting which can be divisive and alienating, doesn't that also say that you should discuss things but we recognise that voting, thought dangerous, is something that is usually resorted to when discussion is exhausted? In that way we can put it out there without in any way recommending it.
Anyhow I guess we should be having this discussion under 'decision making' or something - otherwise it will get lost or distracted by other things.
> >> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
> > and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority and
> > the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting process.
> >> 5. the developments in the computer template
> > I haven't heard from Greg and am reluctant to call him again for fear he may
> > feel pushed. Last time you mentioned Excel sounded positive in most areas.
> > Is it something we could make work or not?
> like you I'm waiting to see if the access application is any better
> before I invest too much time thinking about excel because there are a
> number of elements I don't like including the arrangement with
> headings and the way you land in a cells anywhere you click on the
> application - It certainly isn't everything we would want it to be but
> I think if nothing better was available we could make it work. If Greg
> ironed the bugs out and we were able to re-introduce the sequenced
> development of the steps (which Greg neglected in his last draft for
> some reason) and we added the instructions to each step and the
> printing option worked out it could come together.
OK - let's hope Greg tells us something about Access when he is ready.
> >> 2009/6/11 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> See below
> >> >> alex
> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex see below
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> >> see below
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > Louise has just spoken to the group and they would like to see the
> >> >> >> > dvd
> >> >> >> > next
> >> >> >> > Thursday (18/6) at 11.15am - we will have 1/2-3/4hr.
> >> >> >> Great
> >> >> >> > We can use the TV & dvd from LMNC.
> >> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> > I guess we will need to have a poster to put up and some more post
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > notes
> >> >> >> > if we are to 'refresh' their understanding.
> >> >> >> I was thinking it might be good to put the old poster and the new
> >> >> >> poster up to show them what there support has helped achieved and
> >> >> >> get
> >> >> >> feedback.
> >> >> > Good idea!
> >> >> >> > I guess we will also need to have the decision making, template
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > forum in
This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their machine?
Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
for the over 50s? If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
make the grey come out right)
New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
idea about numbers?
Anything else?
Alex
2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris
>> see below
>> alex
>> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex
>> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to where
>> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger context.
>> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its
>> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For these
>> > new
>> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with the
>> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have, but
>> > could
>> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and
>> > pens.)
>> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a stronger
>> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
>> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last time.
>> The difference in the process could be explained.
>> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
>> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
>> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done that
>> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the video
>> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more I
>> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
>> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift in
>> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
>> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
>> promised.
> OK
>> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
>> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
>> straight forward.
> OK
>> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
>> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building on.
> Yep
>> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
>> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm sure
>> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
>> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
>> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they are
>> up to with it.
> OK
>> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
>> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
>> The points in the decision making process are also points that can be
>> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of the
>> process
>> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
> OK
>> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
>> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
>> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms - I
>> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there and
>> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily make
>> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the video
>> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
>> poster (thanks to their support).
> OK
>> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on the
>> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we
>> > would
>> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
>> > importance
>> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a split
>> > to
>> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
>> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot any
>> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
>> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
>> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't think
>> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
>> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
>> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
>> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
>> meaningful feedback.
> OK
>> > also see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
>> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
>> >> 1. the video
>> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
>> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
>> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
>> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
>> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping this!?
>> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context of
>> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
>> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
>> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess a
>> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
>> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be seen
>> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group supposed
>> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
>> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not really
>> an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
>> situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with the
>> description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
> Yes that's true. However I wonder how people would proceed if we DID just
> leave them to it after giving every encouragement and support for discussion
> and a process for really hearing each other, especially the minority voice?
> If we were to say something like discussion is better than voting which can
> be divisive and alienating, doesn't that also say that you should discuss
> things but we recognise that voting, thought dangerous, is something that is
> usually resorted to when discussion is exhausted? In that way we can put it
> out there without in any way recommending it.
> Anyhow I guess we should be having this discussion under 'decision making'
> or something - otherwise it will get lost or distracted by other things.
>> >> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
>> > and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority
>> > and
>> > the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting
>> > process.
>> >> 5. the developments in the computer template
>> > I haven't heard from Greg and am reluctant to call him again for fear he
>> > may
>> > feel pushed. Last time you mentioned Excel sounded positive in most
>> > areas.
>> > Is it something we could make work or not?
>> like you I'm waiting to see if the access application is any better
>> before I invest too much time thinking about excel because there are a
>> number of elements I don't like including the arrangement with
>> headings and the way you land in a cells anywhere you click on the
>> application - It certainly isn't everything we would want it to be but
>> I think if nothing better was available we could make it work. If Greg
>> ironed the bugs out and we were able to re-introduce the sequenced
>> development of the steps (which Greg neglected in his last draft for
>> some reason) and we added the instructions to each step and the
>> printing option worked out it could come together.
> OK - let's hope Greg tells us something about Access when he is ready.
> Chris
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/6/11 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:58 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> See below
>> >> >> alex
>> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex see below
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:20:26 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> >> see below
>> >> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> >> 2009/6/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
> TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their machine?
Will do
> Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
> for the over 50s?
No
If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
> Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
> make the grey come out right)
Will do
> New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
> so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
OK
> Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
> idea about numbers?
No, I presume same as before??
> Anything else?
I forget what process we just agree to use ... do we need Post it notes?
> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris
> >> see below
> >> alex
> >> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex
> >> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to where
> >> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger context.
> >> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its
> >> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For these
> >> > new
> >> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with the
> >> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have, but
> >> > could
> >> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and
> >> > pens.)
> >> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a stronger
> >> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
> >> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last time.
> >> The difference in the process could be explained.
> >> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
> >> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
> >> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done that
> >> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the video
> >> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more I
> >> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
> >> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift in
> >> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
> >> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
> >> promised.
> > OK
> >> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
> >> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
> >> straight forward.
> > OK
> >> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
> >> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building on.
> > Yep
> >> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
> >> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm sure
> >> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
> >> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
> >> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they are
> >> up to with it.
> > OK
> >> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
> >> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
> >> The points in the decision making process are also points that can be
> >> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of the
> >> process
> >> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
> > OK
> >> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
> >> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
> >> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms - I
> >> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there and
> >> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily make
> >> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the video
> >> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
> >> poster (thanks to their support).
> > OK
> >> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on the
> >> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we
> >> > would
> >> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
> >> > importance
> >> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a split
> >> > to
> >> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
> >> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot any
> >> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
> >> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
> >> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't think
> >> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
> >> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
> >> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
> >> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
> >> meaningful feedback.
> > OK
> >> > also see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
> >> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
> >> >> 1. the video
> >> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
> >> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
> >> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
> >> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description, the
> >> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping this!?
> >> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context of
> >> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
> >> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
> >> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess a
> >> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
> >> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be seen
> >> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group supposed
> >> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
> >> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not really
> >> an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
> >> situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with the
> >> description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
> > Yes that's true. However I wonder how people would proceed if we DID just
> > leave them to it after giving every encouragement and support for discussion
> > and a process for really hearing each other, especially the minority voice?
> > If we were to say something like discussion is better than voting which can
> > be divisive and alienating, doesn't that also say that you should discuss
> > things but we recognise that voting, thought dangerous, is something that is
> > usually resorted to when discussion is exhausted? In that way we can put it
> > out there without in any way recommending it.
> > Anyhow I guess we should be having this discussion under 'decision making'
> > or something - otherwise it will get lost or distracted by other things.
> >> >> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the forum)
> >> > and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority
> >> > and
> >> > the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting
> >> > process.
> >> >> 5. the developments in the computer template
> >> > I haven't heard from Greg and am reluctant to call him again for fear he
> >> > may
> >> > feel pushed. Last time you mentioned Excel sounded positive in most
> >> > areas.
> >> > Is it something we could make work or not?
> >> like you I'm waiting to see if the access application is any better
> >> before I invest too much time thinking about excel because there are a
> >> number of elements I don't like including the arrangement with
> >> headings and the way you land in a cells anywhere you click on the
> >> application - It certainly isn't everything we would want it to be but
> >> I think if nothing better was available we could make it work. If Greg
> >> ironed the bugs out and we were able to re-introduce the sequenced
> >> development of the steps (which Greg neglected in his last draft for
> >> some reason) and we added the instructions to each step and the
> >> printing option worked out it could come together.
> > OK - let's hope Greg tells us something about Access when he is ready.
> > Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
>> TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their machine?
> Will do
>> Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
>> for the over 50s?
> No
> If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
>> Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
>> make the grey come out right)
> Will do
>> New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
>> so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
> OK
>> Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
>> idea about numbers?
> No, I presume same as before??
>> Anything else?
> I forget what process we just agree to use ... do we need Post it notes?
> Pens?
We will show the video and present the changes so we don't need PINs
but we do need pens for the survey. I'll pull together as many as I
can. Can you do the same?
>> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris
>> >> see below
>> >> alex
>> >> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex
>> >> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to
>> >> > where
>> >> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger
>> >> > context.
>> >> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its
>> >> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For
>> >> > these
>> >> > new
>> >> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with
>> >> > the
>> >> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have,
>> >> > but
>> >> > could
>> >> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and
>> >> > pens.)
>> >> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a stronger
>> >> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
>> >> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last time.
>> >> The difference in the process could be explained.
>> >> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
>> >> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
>> >> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done that
>> >> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the video
>> >> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more I
>> >> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
>> >> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift in
>> >> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
>> >> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
>> >> promised.
>> > OK
>> >> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
>> >> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
>> >> straight forward.
>> > OK
>> >> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
>> >> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building on.
>> > Yep
>> >> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
>> >> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm sure
>> >> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
>> >> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
>> >> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they are
>> >> up to with it.
>> > OK
>> >> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
>> >> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
>> >> The points in the decision making process are also points that can be
>> >> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of the
>> >> process
>> >> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
>> > OK
>> >> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
>> >> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
>> >> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms - I
>> >> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there and
>> >> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily make
>> >> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the video
>> >> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
>> >> poster (thanks to their support).
>> > OK
>> >> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on
>> >> > the
>> >> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we
>> >> > would
>> >> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
>> >> > importance
>> >> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a
>> >> > split
>> >> > to
>> >> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
>> >> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot any
>> >> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
>> >> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
>> >> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't think
>> >> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
>> >> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
>> >> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
>> >> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
>> >> meaningful feedback.
>> > OK
>> >> > also see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
>> >> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
>> >> >> 1. the video
>> >> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
>> >> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
>> >> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
>> >> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description,
>> >> >> the
>> >> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping
>> >> > this!?
>> >> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context of
>> >> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
>> >> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
>> >> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess a
>> >> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
>> >> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be seen
>> >> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group supposed
>> >> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
>> >> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not really
>> >> an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
>> >> situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with the
>> >> description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
>> > Yes that's true. However I wonder how people would proceed if we DID
>> > just
>> > leave them to it after giving every encouragement and support for
>> > discussion
>> > and a process for really hearing each other, especially the minority
>> > voice?
>> > If we were to say something like discussion is better than voting which
>> > can
>> > be divisive and alienating, doesn't that also say that you should
>> > discuss
>> > things but we recognise that voting, thought dangerous, is something
>> > that is
>> > usually resorted to when discussion is exhausted? In that way we can put
>> > it
>> > out there without in any way recommending it.
>> > Anyhow I guess we should be having this discussion under 'decision
>> > making'
>> > or something - otherwise it will get lost or distracted by other things.
>> >> >> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the
>> >> >> forum)
>> >> > and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority
>> >> > and
>> >> > the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting
>> >> > process.
>> >> >> 5. the developments in the computer template
>> >> > I haven't heard from Greg and am reluctant to call him again for fear
>> >> > he
>> >> > may
>> >> > feel pushed. Last time you mentioned Excel sounded positive in most
>> >> > areas.
>> >> > Is it something we could make work or not?
>> >> like you I'm waiting to see if the access application is any better
>> >> before I invest too much time thinking about excel because there are a
>> >> number of elements I don't like including the arrangement with
>> >> headings and the way you land in a cells anywhere you click on the
>> >> application - It certainly isn't everything we would want it
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:53:08 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris
> see below
> alex
> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex - see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
> >> TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their machine?
> > Will do
> >> Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
> >> for the over 50s?
> > No
> > If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
> >> Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
> >> make the grey come out right)
> > Will do
> >> New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
> >> so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
> > OK
> >> Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
> >> idea about numbers?
> > No, I presume same as before??
> >> Anything else?
> > I forget what process we just agree to use ... do we need Post it notes?
> > Pens?
> We will show the video and present the changes so we don't need PINs
> but we do need pens for the survey. I'll pull together as many as I
> can. Can you do the same?
> >> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> see below
> >> >> alex
> >> >> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex
> >> >> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to
> >> >> > where
> >> >> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger
> >> >> > context.
> >> >> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of its
> >> >> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For
> >> >> > these
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again with
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > could
> >> >> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and
> >> >> > pens.)
> >> >> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a stronger
> >> >> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
> >> >> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last time.
> >> >> The difference in the process could be explained.
> >> >> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
> >> >> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
> >> >> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done that
> >> >> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the video
> >> >> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more I
> >> >> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
> >> >> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift in
> >> >> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
> >> >> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
> >> >> promised.
> >> > OK
> >> >> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
> >> >> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
> >> >> straight forward.
> >> > OK
> >> >> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
> >> >> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building on.
> >> > Yep
> >> >> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
> >> >> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm sure
> >> >> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
> >> >> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
> >> >> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they are
> >> >> up to with it.
> >> > OK
> >> >> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
> >> >> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
> >> >> The points in the decision making process are also points that can be
> >> >> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of the
> >> >> process
> >> >> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
> >> > OK
> >> >> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
> >> >> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
> >> >> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms - I
> >> >> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there and
> >> >> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily make
> >> >> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the video
> >> >> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
> >> >> poster (thanks to their support).
> >> > OK
> >> >> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg we
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
> >> >> > importance
> >> >> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a
> >> >> > split
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
> >> >> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot any
> >> >> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
> >> >> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
> >> >> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't think
> >> >> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
> >> >> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
> >> >> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
> >> >> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
> >> >> meaningful feedback.
> >> > OK
> >> >> > also see below
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
> >> >> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
> >> >> >> 1. the video
> >> >> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
> >> >> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate an
> >> >> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
> >> >> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1 description,
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping
> >> >> > this!?
> >> >> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context of
> >> >> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
> >> >> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
> >> >> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess a
> >> >> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
> >> >> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be seen
> >> >> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group supposed
> >> >> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
> >> >> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not really
> >> >> an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
> >> >> situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with the
> >> >> description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
> >> > Yes that's true. However I wonder how people would proceed if we DID
> >> > just
> >> > leave them to it after giving every encouragement and support for
> >> > discussion
> >> > and a process for really hearing each other, especially the minority
> >> > voice?
> >> > If we were to say something like discussion is better than voting which
> >> > can
> >> > be divisive and alienating, doesn't that also say that you should
> >> > discuss
> >> > things but we recognise that voting, thought dangerous, is something
> >> > that is
> >> > usually resorted to when discussion is exhausted? In that way we can put
> >> > it
> >> > out there without in any way recommending it.
> >> > Anyhow I guess we should be having this discussion under 'decision
> >> > making'
> >> > or something - otherwise it will get lost or distracted by other things.
> >> >> >> minority voice/voting process in the silent brain storm and the
> >> >> >> forum)
> >> >> > and this!? It would be good to have something that gives the minority
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > the shy a better voice without 'suggesting' it as part of a voting
Hi Chris,
For uni I have to meet with Robyn in the morning and with Mick Barrett
in Lawson at 11.45am and so I wont be at my computer much. We need a
new draft to show the over 50s for Thursday and so we will have to use
where we are up to. I'll look at your feedback tomorrow and we can try
to agree on something for a print on Thursday morning. If we meet at
9am on Thursday we will be able to sort everything out before 11am.
Alex
2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:53:08 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris
>> see below
>> alex
>> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex - see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
>> >> TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their machine?
>> > Will do
>> >> Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
>> >> for the over 50s?
>> > No
>> > If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
>> >> Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
>> >> make the grey come out right)
>> > Will do
>> >> New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
>> >> so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
>> > OK
>> >> Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
>> >> idea about numbers?
>> > No, I presume same as before??
>> >> Anything else?
>> > I forget what process we just agree to use ... do we need Post it notes?
>> > Pens?
>> We will show the video and present the changes so we don't need PINs
>> but we do need pens for the survey. I'll pull together as many as I
>> can. Can you do the same?
> OK
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> see below
>> >> >> alex
>> >> >> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex
>> >> >> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to
>> >> >> > where
>> >> >> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger
>> >> >> > context.
>> >> >> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of
>> >> >> > its
>> >> >> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For
>> >> >> > these
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > could
>> >> >> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and
>> >> >> > pens.)
>> >> >> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a
>> >> >> stronger
>> >> >> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
>> >> >> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last
>> >> >> time.
>> >> >> The difference in the process could be explained.
>> >> >> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
>> >> >> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
>> >> >> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the
>> >> >> video
>> >> >> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
>> >> >> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
>> >> >> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
>> >> >> promised.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
>> >> >> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
>> >> >> straight forward.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
>> >> >> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building
>> >> >> on.
>> >> > Yep
>> >> >> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
>> >> >> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm
>> >> >> sure
>> >> >> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
>> >> >> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
>> >> >> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> up to with it.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
>> >> >> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
>> >> >> The points in the decision making process are also points that can
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> process
>> >> >> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
>> >> >> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
>> >> >> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms -
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily
>> >> >> make
>> >> >> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the
>> >> >> video
>> >> >> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
>> >> >> poster (thanks to their support).
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
>> >> >> > importance
>> >> >> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a
>> >> >> > split
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
>> >> >> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot
>> >> >> any
>> >> >> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
>> >> >> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
>> >> >> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't
>> >> >> think
>> >> >> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
>> >> >> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
>> >> >> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
>> >> >> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
>> >> >> meaningful feedback.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> > also see below
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
>> >> >> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
>> >> >> >> 1. the video
>> >> >> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
>> >> >> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate
>> >> >> >> an
>> >> >> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
>> >> >> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1
>> >> >> >> description,
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping
>> >> >> > this!?
>> >> >> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
>> >> >> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
>> >> >> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
>> >> >> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be
>> >> >> seen
>> >> >> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group
>> >> >> supposed
>> >> >> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
>> >> >> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> an answer just a delay. This delay may be inappropriate in some
>> >> >> situations - say where a minority voice is simply out of step with
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> description a decision based on the description needs to proceed.
>> >> > Yes that's true. However I wonder how people would proceed if we DID
>> >> > just
>> >> > leave them to it after giving every encouragement and support for
> Hi Chris,
> For uni I have to meet with Robyn in the morning and with Mick Barrett
> in Lawson at 11.45am and so I wont be at my computer much. We need a
> new draft to show the over 50s for Thursday and so we will have to use
> where we are up to. I'll look at your feedback tomorrow and we can try
> to agree on something for a print on Thursday morning. If we meet at
> 9am on Thursday we will be able to sort everything out before 11am.
> Alex
> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex
> > see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:53:08 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris
> >> see below
> >> alex
> >> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex - see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
> >> >> TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their
> machine?
> >> > Will do
> >> >> Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
> >> >> for the over 50s?
> >> > No
> >> > If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
> >> >> Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
> >> >> make the grey come out right)
> >> > Will do
> >> >> New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
> >> >> so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
> >> > OK
> >> >> Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
> >> >> idea about numbers?
> >> > No, I presume same as before??
> >> >> Anything else?
> >> > I forget what process we just agree to use ... do we need Post it
> notes?
> >> > Pens?
> >> We will show the video and present the changes so we don't need PINs
> >> but we do need pens for the survey. I'll pull together as many as I
> >> can. Can you do the same?
> > OK
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex see below
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> >> see below
> >> >> >> alex
> >> >> >> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex
> >> >> >> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to
> >> >> >> > where
> >> >> >> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger
> >> >> >> > context.
> >> >> >> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of
> >> >> >> > its
> >> >> >> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place).
> For
> >> >> >> > these
> >> >> >> > new
> >> >> >> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again
> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we
> have,
> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> > could
> >> >> >> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes
> and
> >> >> >> > pens.)
> >> >> >> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a
> >> >> >> stronger
> >> >> >> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
> >> >> >> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last
> >> >> >> time.
> >> >> >> The difference in the process could be explained.
> >> >> >> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the
> main
> >> >> >> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to
> show
> >> >> >> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the
> >> >> >> video
> >> >> >> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's
> more
> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
> >> >> >> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the
> shift
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time,
> could
> >> >> >> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
> >> >> >> promised.
> >> >> > OK
> >> >> >> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
> >> >> >> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is
> pretty
> >> >> >> straight forward.
> >> >> > OK
> >> >> >> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
> >> >> >> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building
> >> >> >> on.
> >> >> > Yep
> >> >> >> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking
> that
> >> >> >> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm
> >> >> >> sure
> >> >> >> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
> >> >> >> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can
> of
> >> >> >> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> up to with it.
> >> >> > OK
> >> >> >> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily
> be
> >> >> >> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
> >> >> >> The points in the decision making process are also points that can
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> process
> >> >> >> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
> >> >> > OK
> >> >> >> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
> >> >> >> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
> >> >> >> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms
> -
> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily
> >> >> >> make
> >> >> >> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the
> >> >> >> video
> >> >> >> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
> >> >> >> poster (thanks to their support).
> >> >> > OK
> >> >> >> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting
> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work.
> (eg
> >> >> >> > we
> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
> >> >> >> > importance
> >> >> >> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation,
> a
> >> >> >> > split
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
> >> >> >> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot
> >> >> >> any
> >> >> >> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too
> contentious
> >> >> >> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
> >> >> >> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't
> >> >> >> think
> >> >> >> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and
> the
> >> >> >> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend
> those
> >> >> >> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
> >> >> >> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
> >> >> >> meaningful feedback.
> >> >> > OK
> >> >> >> > also see below
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
> >> >> >> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last
> email)
> >> >> >> >> 1. the video
> >> >> >> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
> >> >> >> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to
> initiate
> >> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
> >> >> >> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1
> >> >> >> >> description,
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping
> >> >> >> > this!?
> >> >> >> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group
> identifies
> >> >> >> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some
> potential.
> >> >> >> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I
> guess
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:10:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
Hi Chris, I have attached the results from the follow up survey for the over 50s for the NTW record. Alex
Hi Chris,
For uni I have to meet with Robyn in the morning and with Mick Barrett
in Lawson at 11.45am and so I wont be at my computer much. We need a
new draft to show the over 50s for Thursday and so we will have to use
where we are up to. I'll look at your feedback tomorrow and we can try
to agree on something for a print on Thursday morning. If we meet at
9am on Thursday we will be able to sort everything out before 11am.
Alex
2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:53:08 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris
>> see below
>> alex
>> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex - see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> This is a check list for Thursday over 50s meeting 11.15am
>> >> TV and video - have you made sure our DVD copy works in their machine?
>> > Will do
>> >> Old poster blown up to A2 - do you stillhave that old version we used
>> >> for the over 50s?
>> > No
>> > If not could you blow the attached (see attached old
>> >> Co-operator) up on the photocopier (I think we needed to darken it to
>> >> make the grey come out right)
>> > Will do
>> >> New poster blown up - well we don't have a final draft at the moment
>> >> so might have to leave this to Thursday morning
>> > OK
>> >> Surveys and consent forms - I'll do Thursday morning - do we have an
>> >> idea about numbers?
>> > No, I presume same as before??
>> >> Anything else?
>> > I forget what process we just agree to use ... do we need Post it notes?
>> > Pens?
>> We will show the video and present the changes so we don't need PINs
>> but we do need pens for the survey. I'll pull together as many as I
>> can. Can you do the same?
> OK
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/6/15 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:40 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> see below
>> >> >> alex
>> >> >> 2009/6/14 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex
>> >> >> > The survey sounds a bit like a formality rather than anything to
>> >> >> > where
>> >> >> > people might be taken notice of - perhaps it needs a stronger
>> >> >> > context.
>> >> >> > They will have virtually forgotten their previous experience of
>> >> >> > its
>> >> >> > technicalities (if they ever realised any in the first place). For
>> >> >> > these
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > questions to feel real they might need to try the process again
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > revisions beforehand. That might be difficult in the time we have,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > could
>> >> >> > we do it? (Again we would need posters blown up, post it notes and
>> >> >> > pens.)
>> >> >> Yes - re-doing the process would be one way we could create a
>> >> >> stronger
>> >> >> context for the revisions. The over 50s group would brainstorm a
>> >> >> description instead of the activity name and tasks they did last
>> >> >> time.
>> >> >> The difference in the process could be explained.
>> >> >> I'm not really inclined to do this however because I think the main
>> >> >> benefit of literally taking the group through the process is to show
>> >> >> how the silent brainstorm works. Given that we have already done
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> with them and that they will be watching a reminder of it in the
>> >> >> video
>> >> >> I think to do it again will be unneeded and long-winded. What's more
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> think it would over step the boundary of what I think they are
>> >> >> inviting us back for. On the other hand an explanation of the shift
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> step one, contextualised in what we did in step on last time, could
>> >> >> achieve as much and would be consistent with the update we have
>> >> >> promised.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> The video can be shown and it can be said that is can serve as an
>> >> >> introduction where someone like me isn't available - that is pretty
>> >> >> straight forward.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> The new step 1 (the description) can be explained in relation to
>> >> >> finding common ground or asserting a particular idea for building
>> >> >> on.
>> >> > Yep
>> >> >> We can point to the old poster on the wall and say how lacking that
>> >> >> description means their is a lack of a common point of focus. I'm
>> >> >> sure
>> >> >> they will see that. The party difference from last time could be
>> >> >> mentioned as an example but I'm not sure we should open that can of
>> >> >> worms. People got hot under the collar and I don't know where they
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> up to with it.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> The simplification of the poster from 6 questions to 3 can easily be
>> >> >> seen and explained (with both posters visible)
>> >> >> The points in the decision making process are also points that can
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> explained and wouldn't really be helped by any kind of re-doing of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> process
>> >> >> ...and the work on the template is simply a mention.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> I think this brief presentation will be clear enough to get some
>> >> >> feedback about what has improved and perhaps what hasn't. I really
>> >> >> wouldn't like to go back to involving them in a silent brainstorms -
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> think we have already got the advantage of their experience there
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> going back to it wouldn't serve any real purpose but could easily
>> >> >> make
>> >> >> the whole thing too long-winded. Basically they want to see the
>> >> >> video
>> >> >> and I think we can get away with 10min on the improvements to the
>> >> >> poster (thanks to their support).
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> > We could redo the party exercise with them, this time reflecting
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > things that inspired the changes and how the changes now work. (eg
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > identify the dispute about the nature of the party, explain the
>> >> >> > importance
>> >> >> > of an initial description and explain that after a conversation, a
>> >> >> > split
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > work on 2 seperate party ideas would be supported.)
>> >> >> I wouldn't really like to raise the party dispute let along pivot
>> >> >> any
>> >> >> aspect of our presentation on it. It could easily be too contentious
>> >> >> and we don't want to deal with it - as is the idea that the group
>> >> >> would comfortably entertain the idea of a split - I really don't
>> >> >> think
>> >> >> they would. I'm pretty confident that we can show the video and the
>> >> >> key changes and that they will basically be able to comprehend those
>> >> >> changes and relate them to their previous experience of the
>> >> >> Co-operator. I think this will be enough for some relatively
>> >> >> meaningful feedback.
>> >> > OK
>> >> >> > also see below
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:41 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I have attached the survey we could use after briefly
>> >> >> >> presenting the 5 new developments (not 4 as i said in last email)
>> >> >> >> 1. the video
>> >> >> >> 2. the new simplifyed groups steps (new poster next to old one)
>> >> >> >> 3. the addition of the description (step 1) as a way to initiate
>> >> >> >> an
>> >> >> >> activity & a basis for cooperation
>> >> >> >> 4. the decision making addition (including the step 1
>> >> >> >> description,
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> > Hopefully you didn't have a heart attack at the idea of dropping
>> >> >> > this!?
>> >> >> The idea of not using the word 'vote' and simply using the context
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> effective discussion to suggest a process where the group identifies
>> >> >> and hears the minority voice sounds like it may have some potential.
>> >> >> ...and then referring to the forum if it all gets too long. I guess
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> problem is that if we don't somehow acknowledge that a majority
>> >> >> decision may prevail at some point the Co-operator process may be
>> >> >> seen
>> >> >> as unworkable. Without a vote to follow it up what is a group
>> >> >> supposed
>> >> >> to do once they have heard the minority voice and recognised that
>> >> >> there is no shift in perspectives? Referring to a forum is not
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> an answer just a delay. This delay may be
|
