Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible questions we may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each question which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative) while also providing a comment line which can be analysed for reoccurring more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the process as user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand back from the process all together. This could help us refrain from jumping in the drivers seat of the process. The problem here is that with our presence they may demand facilitation - especially Robyn who they are used to facilitation from. So one option is to hand it to them and leave them with it and the camera man. Alternatively we could respond to their questions briefly and note the questions as part of the survey feedback. Either way the less of us that actually attend the better because it increases the chances of compromising self-help.
> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible questions we
> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
> comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and
> subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each question
> which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative) while
> also providing a comment line which can be analysed for reoccurring
> more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
> Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a
> self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the process as
> user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand back
> from the process all together. This could help us refrain from jumping
> in the drivers seat of the process. The problem here is that with our
> presence they may demand facilitation - especially Robyn who they are
> used to facilitation from. So one option is to hand it to them and
> leave them with it and the camera man. Alternatively we could respond
> to their questions briefly and note the questions as part of the
> survey feedback. Either way the less of us that actually attend the
> better because it increases the chances of compromising self-help.
Robyn pointed out that we need to have a hyphen in the name 'Co-operator'.
Chris
From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
CC: c...@lmnc.org.au
Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:28:53 +1100
Hi Alex & Robyn,
My comments are in the attached doc in red
Chris
> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible questions we
> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
> comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and
> subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each question
> which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative) while
> also providing a comment line which can be analysed for reoccurring
> more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
> Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a
> self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the process as
> user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand back
> from the process all together. This could help us refrain from jumping
> in the drivers seat of the process. The problem here is that with our
> presence they may demand facilitation - especially Robyn who they are
> used to facilitation from. So one option is to hand it to them and
> leave them with it and the camera man. Alternatively we could respond
> to their questions briefly and note the questions as part of the
> survey feedback. Either way the less of us that actually attend the
> better because it increases the chances of compromising self-help.
> Alex
> </html
_________________________________________________________________
Find out what’s new with your friends Download the new Windows Live Messenger
http://download.live.com/
Hi Chris and Robyn, I have drafted a consent letter for the honours research with the over 50's group. I have addressed it from me because I'm required to do so by UWS. The wording is based on my understanding of our discussion yesterday but again it may change as it has to go through some official channels at UWS and meet the formalities. I think such formalities will likely improve the process as that is what they are trying to do for all concerned.
I think the consent letter could sound less of a commitment for them with the changes in the attached revision.
Robyn is talking to the group tomorrow and wants to ask them for permission for the video students to attend on the 30th to practice and develop their community engagement skills and video their experience.
I suggested she should talk to you about your draft, but she wants to firm up the date first and says that the use of the Co-operator and the survey can be attached to the event later.
I'm not sure about this process, but we are in Robyn's hands. If you like you could catch her before she goes in to talk to them tomorrow or if you are satisfied you could just leave it.
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:41:31 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
> CC: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris and Robyn,
> I have drafted a consent letter for the honours research with the over
> 50's group. I have addressed it from me because I'm required to do so
> by UWS. The wording is based on my understanding of our discussion
> yesterday but again it may change as it has to go through some
> official channels at UWS and meet the formalities. I think such
> formalities will likely improve the process as that is what they are
> trying to do for all concerned.
This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to ntw post instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have changed the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg should now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you sent to ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better in the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to explain why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> little easier to use.
> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> suggestions yet.
> Alex
> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting in the
> > attached doc..
> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
> > Chris
> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s meeting on
> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we can
> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry the
> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
> >> daughter.
> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's group
> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one on the
> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
> >> suggestions)
> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we happy
> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
> >> Template'?
> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research project
> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about what we
> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time constraints we
> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance unless we
> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
> >> co-operator, get consent, run through the process and get feedback on
> >> the process it may well be advisable to have a meeting with the group
> >> prior to the 30th where we can introduce ourselves and the process and
> >> get consent for the 30th process so that we can just get stuck into
> >> the process on the 30th. If this is not possible perhaps a letter or a
> >> call to each participant would work. Given the ground we have to
> >> cover, it may also be good to get an extra 30min if possible.
> >> 6. The innovation of this process is that it is supposed to facilitate
> >> the process without needing a facilitator. The nature of the ticket
> >> writing is that it shares time and gets everybody heard. We need to
> >> see if it gets there without a facilitator. To avoid us taking control
> >> of the process how should we introduce it, how should we deal with
> >> group questions/frustrations? Would it be better for us to not be
> >> there - so that they turn to the process and not us? I'm particularly
> >> worried that they will look to Robyn as a facilitator/leader as this
> >> seems to be the history.
> >> 7. Robyn could you also confirm the April 30 11am - 12pm time because
> >> getting a camera man may not be easy again if there is any mix up.
> >> It may be good to meet soon but for now is it possible just to use
> >> email to share thoughts on the above and any other matters?
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > Robyn pointed out that we need to have a hyphen in the
> >> > name 'Co-operator'.
> >> > Chris
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> > CC: c...@lmnc.org.au
> >> > Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:28:53 +1100
> >> > Hi Alex & Robyn,
> >> > My comments are in the attached doc in red
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
> >> >> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible questions we
> >> >> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
> >> >> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
> >> >> comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and
> >> >> subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each question
> >> >> which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative) while
> >> >> also providing a comment line which can be analysed for reoccurring
> >> >> more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
> >> >> Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a
> >> >> self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the process as
> >> >> user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand back
> >> >> from the process all together. This could help us refrain from jumping
> >> >> in the drivers seat of the process. The problem here is that with our
> >> >> presence they may demand facilitation - especially Robyn who they are
> >> >> used to facilitation from. So one option is to hand it to them and
> >> >> leave them with it and the camera man. Alternatively we could respond
> >> >> to their questions briefly and note the questions as part of the
> >> >> survey feedback. Either way the less of us that actually attend the
> >> >> better because it increases the chances of compromising self-help.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> </html
> > ________________________________
> > Let ninemsn property help. Need a new place to rent, share or buy?
_________________________________________________________________
Find out what’s new with your friends Download the new Windows Live Messenger
http://download.live.com/
Hi Chris,
I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I cc
to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
emails going public. If we want to include people in these discussions
we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to Peta
and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
survey with new order.
Alex
2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to ntw post
> instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have changed
> the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg should
> now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you sent to
> ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
> Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better in
> the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to explain
> why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
> Chris
>> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
>> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
>> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
>> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
>> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
>> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
>> little easier to use.
>> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
>> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
>> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
>> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
>> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
>> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
>> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
>> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
>> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
>> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
>> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
>> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
>> suggestions yet.
>> Alex
>> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting in
>> > the
>> > attached doc..
>> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
>> > Chris
>> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
>> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
>> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
>> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s meeting on
>> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
>> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
>> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we can
>> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry the
>> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
>> >> daughter.
>> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's group
>> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one on the
>> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
>> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
>> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
>> >> suggestions)
>> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we happy
>> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
>> >> Template'?
>> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
>> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research project
>> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about what we
>> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time constraints we
>> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance unless we
>> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
>> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
>> >> co-operator, get consent, run through the process and get feedback on
>> >> the process it may well be advisable to have a meeting with the group
>> >> prior to the 30th where we can introduce ourselves and the process and
>> >> get consent for the 30th process so that we can just get stuck into
>> >> the process on the 30th. If this is not possible perhaps a letter or a
>> >> call to each participant would work. Given the ground we have to
>> >> cover, it may also be good to get an extra 30min if possible.
>> >> 6. The innovation of this process is that it is supposed to facilitate
>> >> the process without needing a facilitator. The nature of the ticket
>> >> writing is that it shares time and gets everybody heard. We need to
>> >> see if it gets there without a facilitator. To avoid us taking control
>> >> of the process how should we introduce it, how should we deal with
>> >> group questions/frustrations? Would it be better for us to not be
>> >> there - so that they turn to the process and not us? I'm particularly
>> >> worried that they will look to Robyn as a facilitator/leader as this
>> >> seems to be the history.
>> >> 7. Robyn could you also confirm the April 30 11am - 12pm time because
>> >> getting a camera man may not be easy again if there is any mix up.
>> >> It may be good to meet soon but for now is it possible just to use
>> >> email to share thoughts on the above and any other matters?
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/3/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > Robyn pointed out that we need to have a hyphen in the
>> >> > name 'Co-operator'.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> > ________________________________
>> >> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> >> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> > CC: c...@lmnc.org.au
>> >> > Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:28:53 +1100
>> >> > Hi Alex & Robyn,
>> >> > My comments are in the attached doc in red
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
>> >> >> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
>> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible questions
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
>> >> >> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
>> >> >> comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and
>> >> >> subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each question
>> >> >> which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative)
>> >> >> while
>> >> >> also providing a comment line which can be analysed for reoccurring
>> >> >> more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
>> >> >> Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a
>> >> >> self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the process
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand back
>> >> >> from the process all together. This could help us refrain from
>> >> >> jumping
>> >> >> in the drivers seat of the process. The problem here is that with
>> >> >> our
>> >> >> presence they may demand facilitation - especially Robyn who they
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> used to facilitation from. So one option is to hand it to them and
>> >> >> leave them with it and the camera man. Alternatively we could
>> >> >> respond
>> >> >> to their questions briefly and note the questions as part of the
>> >> >> survey feedback. Either way the less of us that actually attend the
>> >> >> better because it increases the chances of compromising self-help.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the email arrangement we have. If you think someone might want to be private, you take responsibility for that and cut and paste the conversatin into a private mail and send it from ntw post. If you also want NTW in the loop as it should be on virtually everything to save us setting up a hierarchy, you need to report the points of the private person through gg. But obviously you can't complain about material being left out of gg if you didn't send it there.
Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is. It's not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy with - it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you said.
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I cc
> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
> emails going public. If we want to include people in these discussions
> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to Peta
> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
> survey with new order.
> Alex
> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to ntw post
> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have changed
> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg should
> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you sent to
> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better in
> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to explain
> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
> > Chris
> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> >> little easier to use.
> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> suggestions yet.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting in
> >> > the
> >> > attached doc..
> >> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
> >> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
> >> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
> >> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s meeting on
> >> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
> >> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
> >> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we can
> >> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry the
> >> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
> >> >> daughter.
> >> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's group
> >> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one on the
> >> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
> >> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
> >> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
> >> >> suggestions)
> >> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we happy
> >> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
> >> >> Template'?
> >> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
> >> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research project
> >> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about what we
> >> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time constraints we
> >> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance unless we
> >> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
> >> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
> >> >> co-operator, get consent, run through the process and get feedback on
> >> >> the process it may well be advisable to have a meeting with the group
> >> >> prior to the 30th where we can introduce ourselves and the process and
> >> >> get consent for the 30th process so that we can just get stuck into
> >> >> the process on the 30th. If this is not possible perhaps a letter or a
> >> >> call to each participant would work. Given the ground we have to
> >> >> cover, it may also be good to get an extra 30min if possible.
> >> >> 6. The innovation of this process is that it is supposed to facilitate
> >> >> the process without needing a facilitator. The nature of the ticket
> >> >> writing is that it shares time and gets everybody heard. We need to
> >> >> see if it gets there without a facilitator. To avoid us taking control
> >> >> of the process how should we introduce it, how should we deal with
> >> >> group questions/frustrations? Would it be better for us to not be
> >> >> there - so that they turn to the process and not us? I'm particularly
> >> >> worried that they will look to Robyn as a facilitator/leader as this
> >> >> seems to be the history.
> >> >> 7. Robyn could you also confirm the April 30 11am - 12pm time because
> >> >> getting a camera man may not be easy again if there is any mix up.
> >> >> It may be good to meet soon but for now is it possible just to use
> >> >> email to share thoughts on the above and any other matters?
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > Robyn pointed out that we need to have a hyphen in the
> >> >> > name 'Co-operator'.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> >> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> > CC: c...@lmnc.org.au
> >> >> > Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:28:53 +1100
> >> >> > Hi Alex & Robyn,
> >> >> > My comments are in the attached doc in red
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
> >> >> >> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible questions
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
> >> >> >> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
> >> >> >> comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and
> >> >> >> subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each question
> >> >> >> which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative)
> >> >> >> while
> >> >> >> also providing a comment line which can be analysed for reoccurring
> >> >> >> more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
> >> >> >> Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a
> >> >> >> self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the process
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand back
> >> >> >> from the process all together. This could help us refrain from
> >> >> >> jumping
> >> >> >> in the drivers seat of the process. The problem here is that with
> >> >> >> our
> >> >> >> presence they may demand facilitation - especially Robyn who they
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> used to facilitation from. So one option is to hand it to them and
> >> >> >> leave them with it and the camera man.
I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email Record'
> Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is. It's
> not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy with -
> it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this
> version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you said.
If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me a
reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
you.
>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
>> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I cc
>> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
>> emails going public. If we want to include people in these discussions
>> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
>> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to Peta
>> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
>> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
>> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
>> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
>> survey with new order.
>> Alex
>> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to ntw
>> > post
>> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have
>> > changed
>> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg
>> > should
>> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you sent
>> > to
>> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
>> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better
>> > in
>> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
>> > explain
>> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
>> > Chris
>> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
>> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
>> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
>> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
>> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
>> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
>> >> little easier to use.
>> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
>> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
>> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
>> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
>> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
>> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
>> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
>> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
>> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
>> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
>> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
>> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
>> >> suggestions yet.
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting in
>> >> > the
>> >> > attached doc..
>> >> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
>> >> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
>> >> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
>> >> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s meeting
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
>> >> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
>> >> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we can
>> >> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry the
>> >> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
>> >> >> daughter.
>> >> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's group
>> >> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one on
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
>> >> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
>> >> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
>> >> >> suggestions)
>> >> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we happy
>> >> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
>> >> >> Template'?
>> >> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
>> >> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research
>> >> >> project
>> >> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about what
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time constraints
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance unless
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
>> >> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
>> >> >> co-operator, get consent, run through the process and get feedback
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> the process it may well be advisable to have a meeting with the
>> >> >> group
>> >> >> prior to the 30th where we can introduce ourselves and the process
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> get consent for the 30th process so that we can just get stuck into
>> >> >> the process on the 30th. If this is not possible perhaps a letter or
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> call to each participant would work. Given the ground we have to
>> >> >> cover, it may also be good to get an extra 30min if possible.
>> >> >> 6. The innovation of this process is that it is supposed to
>> >> >> facilitate
>> >> >> the process without needing a facilitator. The nature of the ticket
>> >> >> writing is that it shares time and gets everybody heard. We need to
>> >> >> see if it gets there without a facilitator. To avoid us taking
>> >> >> control
>> >> >> of the process how should we introduce it, how should we deal with
>> >> >> group questions/frustrations? Would it be better for us to not be
>> >> >> there - so that they turn to the process and not us? I'm
>> >> >> particularly
>> >> >> worried that they will look to Robyn as a facilitator/leader as this
>> >> >> seems to be the history.
>> >> >> 7. Robyn could you also confirm the April 30 11am - 12pm time
>> >> >> because
>> >> >> getting a camera man may not be easy again if there is any mix up.
>> >> >> It may be good to meet soon but for now is it possible just to use
>> >> >> email to share thoughts on the above and any other matters?
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/3/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > Robyn pointed out that we need to have a hyphen in the
>> >> >> > name 'Co-operator'.
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> > ________________________________
>> >> >> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> >> >> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> > CC: c...@lmnc.org.au
>> >> >> > Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:28:53 +1100
>> >> >> > Hi Alex & Robyn,
>> >> >> > My comments are in the attached doc in red
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
>> >> >> >> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible
>> >> >> >> questions
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
>> >> >> >> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
>> >> >> >> comparable and measurable data as well as more open ended and
>> >> >> >> subjective data. It does this by offering a scale on each
>> >> >> >> question
>> >> >> >> which can be easily converted into graphs/tables (quantitative)
>> >> >> >> while
>> >> >> >> also providing a comment line which can be analysed for
>> >> >> >> reoccurring
>> >> >> >> more open and subjective themes (qualitative).
>> >> >> >> Part of the approach I am proposing (specifically because it is a
>> >> >> >> self-help tool that we want to assess) is that we make the
>> >> >> >> process
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> user friendly as possible prior to offering it and then stand
>> >> >> >> back
>> >> >> >> from the process all together. This could help us refrain from
>> >> >> >> jumping
>> >> >> >> in the drivers seat
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> See interspersed
> Alex
> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email Record'
> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is. It's
> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy with -
> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this
> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you said.
> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me a
> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
> you.
The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached a file with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I cc
> >> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
> >> emails going public. If we want to include people in these discussions
> >> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
> >> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to Peta
> >> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
> >> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
> >> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
> >> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
> >> survey with new order.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to ntw
> >> > post
> >> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have
> >> > changed
> >> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg
> >> > should
> >> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you sent
> >> > to
> >> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
> >> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better
> >> > in
> >> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
> >> > explain
> >> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> >> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> >> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> >> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> >> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> >> >> little easier to use.
> >> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> >> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> >> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> >> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> >> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> >> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> >> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> >> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> >> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> >> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> >> suggestions yet.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > attached doc..
> >> >> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
> >> >> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
> >> >> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s meeting
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
> >> >> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
> >> >> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we can
> >> >> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry the
> >> >> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
> >> >> >> daughter.
> >> >> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's group
> >> >> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one on
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
> >> >> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
> >> >> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
> >> >> >> suggestions)
> >> >> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we happy
> >> >> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
> >> >> >> Template'?
> >> >> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
> >> >> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research
> >> >> >> project
> >> >> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about what
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time constraints
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance unless
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
> >> >> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
> >> >> >> co-operator, get consent, run through the process and get feedback
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> the process it may well be advisable to have a meeting with the
> >> >> >> group
> >> >> >> prior to the 30th where we can introduce ourselves and the process
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> get consent for the 30th process so that we can just get stuck into
> >> >> >> the process on the 30th. If this is not possible perhaps a letter or
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> call to each participant would work. Given the ground we have to
> >> >> >> cover, it may also be good to get an extra 30min if possible.
> >> >> >> 6. The innovation of this process is that it is supposed to
> >> >> >> facilitate
> >> >> >> the process without needing a facilitator. The nature of the ticket
> >> >> >> writing is that it shares time and gets everybody heard. We need to
> >> >> >> see if it gets there without a facilitator. To avoid us taking
> >> >> >> control
> >> >> >> of the process how should we introduce it, how should we deal with
> >> >> >> group questions/frustrations? Would it be better for us to not be
> >> >> >> there - so that they turn to the process and not us? I'm
> >> >> >> particularly
> >> >> >> worried that they will look to Robyn as a facilitator/leader as this
> >> >> >> seems to be the history.
> >> >> >> 7. Robyn could you also confirm the April 30 11am - 12pm time
> >> >> >> because
> >> >> >> getting a camera man may not be easy again if there is any mix up.
> >> >> >> It may be good to meet soon but for now is it possible just to use
> >> >> >> email to share thoughts on the above and any other matters?
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/3/10 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > Robyn pointed out that we need to have a hyphen in the
> >> >> >> > name 'Co-operator'.
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> >> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> > CC: c...@lmnc.org.au
> >> >> >> > Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:28:53 +1100
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex & Robyn,
> >> >> >> > My comments are in the attached doc in red
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:55:58 +1100
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> CC: c...@pnc.com.au
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, Attached is a brainstorm of possible
> >> >> >> >> questions
> >> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> >> may have on a survey. If you can add to the list great. It also
> >> >> >> >> proposes a certain style of asking questions which allows for
Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said was
much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted your
reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you -
so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
have done it in any other way.
Alex
2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> See interspersed
>> Alex
>> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email Record'
>> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is.
>> > It's
>> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy
>> > with -
>> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this
>> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you
>> > said.
>> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
>> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
>> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me a
>> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
>> you.
> The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be
> reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached a file
> with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
> Chris
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
>> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I cc
>> >> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
>> >> emails going public. If we want to include people in these discussions
>> >> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
>> >> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to Peta
>> >> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
>> >> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
>> >> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
>> >> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
>> >> survey with new order.
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to
>> >> > ntw
>> >> > post
>> >> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have
>> >> > changed
>> >> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg
>> >> > should
>> >> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you
>> >> > sent
>> >> > to
>> >> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
>> >> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
>> >> > better
>> >> > in
>> >> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
>> >> > explain
>> >> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
>> >> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> >> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
>> >> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
>> >> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
>> >> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
>> >> >> little easier to use.
>> >> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual
>> >> >> research
>> >> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
>> >> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
>> >> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
>> >> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
>> >> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached
>> >> >> draft
>> >> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator
>> >> >> gets
>> >> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard,
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
>> >> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
>> >> >> suggestions yet.
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > attached doc..
>> >> >> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
>> >> >> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
>> >> >> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s
>> >> >> >> meeting
>> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
>> >> >> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
>> >> >> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we
>> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
>> >> >> >> daughter.
>> >> >> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's
>> >> >> >> group
>> >> >> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one
>> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
>> >> >> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
>> >> >> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
>> >> >> >> suggestions)
>> >> >> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we
>> >> >> >> happy
>> >> >> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
>> >> >> >> Template'?
>> >> >> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
>> >> >> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research
>> >> >> >> project
>> >> >> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about
>> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time
>> >> >> >> constraints
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance
>> >> >> >> unless
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
>> >> >> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
>> >> >> >> co-operator, get consent, run through the process and get
>> >> >> >> feedback
>> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> the process it may well be advisable to have a meeting with the
>> >> >> >> group
>> >> >> >> prior to the 30th where we can introduce ourselves and the
>> >> >> >> process
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> get consent for the 30th process so that we can just get stuck
>> >> >> >> into
>> >> >> >> the process on the 30th. If this is not possible perhaps a letter
>> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> call to each participant would work. Given the ground we have to
>> >> >> >> cover, it may also be good to get an extra 30min if possible.
>> >> >> >> 6. The innovation of this process is that it is supposed to
>> >> >> >> facilitate
>> >> >> >> the process without needing a facilitator. The nature of the
>> >> >> >> ticket
>> >> >> >> writing is that it shares time and gets everybody heard. We need
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> see if it gets there without a facilitator. To avoid us taking
>> >> >> >> control
>> >> >> >> of the process how should we introduce it, how should we deal
>> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> group questions/frustrations? Would it be better for us to not be
>> >> >> >> there - so that they turn to the process and not us? I'm
>> >> >> >> particularly
>> >> >> >> worried that they will look to Robyn as a facilitator/leader as
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> seems to be the history.
>> >> >> >> 7. Robyn could you also confirm the April 30 11am - 12pm time
>> >> >> >> because
>> >> >> >> getting a camera man may not be easy again if there is any mix
>> >> >> >> up.
>> >> >> >> It may be good to meet soon but for now is it possible just to
>> >> >> >> use
>> >> >> >> email to share thoughts on the above and any other matters?
There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs had reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those comments in the email
Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you angry. I don't understand why.
Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only one reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM.
Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my attention to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise for the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:55:48 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said was
> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted your
> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you -
> so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
> anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
> have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
> have done it in any other way.
> Alex
> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > see interspersing below
> > Chris
> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> See interspersed
> >> Alex
> >> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email Record'
> >> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is.
> >> > It's
> >> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy
> >> > with -
> >> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this
> >> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you
> >> > said.
> >> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
> >> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
> >> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me a
> >> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
> >> you.
> > The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be
> > reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached a file
> > with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
> > Chris
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
> >> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I cc
> >> >> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
> >> >> emails going public. If we want to include people in these discussions
> >> >> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
> >> >> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to Peta
> >> >> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
> >> >> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
> >> >> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
> >> >> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
> >> >> survey with new order.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal email to
> >> >> > ntw
> >> >> > post
> >> >> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have
> >> >> > changed
> >> >> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting, gg
> >> >> > should
> >> >> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which you
> >> >> > sent
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
> >> >> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
> >> >> > better
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
> >> >> > explain
> >> >> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the explanation.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> >> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> >> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> >> >> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> >> >> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow
> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> >> >> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> >> >> >> little easier to use.
> >> >> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual
> >> >> >> research
> >> >> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> >> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> >> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> >> >> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> >> >> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached
> >> >> >> draft
> >> >> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator
> >> >> >> gets
> >> >> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard,
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> >> >> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> >> >> suggestions yet.
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green highlighting
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > attached doc..
> >> >> >> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
> >> >> >> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
> >> >> >> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s
> >> >> >> >> meeting
> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
> >> >> >> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
> >> >> >> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we
> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to carry
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
> >> >> >> >> daughter.
> >> >> >> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's
> >> >> >> >> group
> >> >> >> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on one
> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
> >> >> >> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted - see
> >> >> >> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
> >> >> >> >> suggestions)
> >> >> >> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we
> >> >> >> >> happy
> >> >> >> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
> >> >> >> >> Template'?
> >> >> >> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through the
> >> >> >> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research
> >> >> >> >> project
> >> >> >> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about
> >> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time
> >> >> >> >> constraints
> >> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance
> >> >> >> >> unless
> >> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
> >> >> >> >> 5. Time - Given that we only have 1hr to introduce ourselves, the
> >> >> >> >> co-operator, get
Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
reattached to this email.
You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft better
and that you would take it home and review it.
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>Hi Alex,
>The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get back with any suggestions >later.
>Chris
The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
>Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the explanation.
>Chris
If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
number of times)
If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and would
review) and put the questions in the order you want and send it back
to me so I can review it.
>> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said was
>> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted your
>> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
>> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
>> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you -
>> so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
>> anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
>> have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
>> have done it in any other way.
>> Alex
>> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > see interspersing below
>> > Chris
>> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> See interspersed
>> >> Alex
>> >> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email
>> >> Record'
>> >> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is.
>> >> > It's
>> >> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy
>> >> > with -
>> >> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this
>> >> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you
>> >> > said.
>> >> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
>> >> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
>> >> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me a
>> >> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
>> >> you.
>> > The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be
>> > reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached a
>> > file
>> > with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
>> > Chris
>> >> Alex
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
>> >> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I
>> >> >> cc
>> >> >> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
>> >> >> emails going public. If we want to include people in these
>> >> >> discussions
>> >> >> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
>> >> >> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to
>> >> >> Peta
>> >> >> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
>> >> >> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
>> >> >> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
>> >> >> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
>> >> >> survey with new order.
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal
>> >> >> > email to
>> >> >> > ntw
>> >> >> > post
>> >> >> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have
>> >> >> > changed
>> >> >> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting,
>> >> >> > gg
>> >> >> > should
>> >> >> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > sent
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
>> >> >> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
>> >> >> > better
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
>> >> >> > explain
>> >> >> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the
>> >> >> > explanation.
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
>> >> >> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> >> >> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and
>> >> >> >> opportunity
>> >> >> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and
>> >> >> >> graphing
>> >> >> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached
>> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it
>> >> >> >> all a
>> >> >> >> little easier to use.
>> >> >> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual
>> >> >> >> research
>> >> >> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
>> >> >> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
>> >> >> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills
>> >> >> >> (treasury,
>> >> >> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process.
>> >> >> >> With
>> >> >> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached
>> >> >> >> draft
>> >> >> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the
>> >> >> >> duties
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator
>> >> >> >> gets
>> >> >> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard,
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft
>> >> >> >> below
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey
>> >> >> >> past
>> >> >> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
>> >> >> >> suggestions yet.
>> >> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green
>> >> >> >> > highlighting
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > attached doc..
>> >> >> >> > (Robyn, if I missed anything, please just let Alex know)
>> >> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:27:05 +1100
>> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> >> To: ntwp...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> >> CC: communitydevelopm...@lmnc.org.au
>> >> >> >> >> Hi Robyn and Chris,
>> >> >> >> >> There are a number of issues below to do with the over 50s
>> >> >> >> >> meeting
>> >> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> >> the 30th of April that would be good to clarify:
>> >> >> >> >> 1. Regarding the Co-operator process -
>> >> >> >> >> a) It would be good to run through the co-operator steps so we
>> >> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> >> feel as confident as possible that it has the potential to
>> >> >> >> >> carry
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> process without our intervention. I will attempt this with my
>> >> >> >> >> daughter.
>> >> >> >> >> b)The organiser process is very task focused so the over 50's
>> >> >> >> >> group
>> >> >> >> >> will need a task they want to focus on. To try and agree on
>> >> >> >> >> one
>> >> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> day will not be likely to work because of time restrictions.
>> >> >> >> >> 2. Survey - Are we happy with the questions I have drafted -
>> >> >> >> >> see
>> >> >> >> >> attached? (Chris this survey draft has integrated all your
>> >> >> >> >> suggestions)
>> >> >> >> >> 3. Filming - As we will have a guy filming the process are we
>> >> >> >> >> happy
>> >> >> >> >> with the list of shots in the attached 'Co-operator Video Shot
>> >> >> >> >> Template'?
>> >> >> >> >> 4. Consent - To ask the group to choose a topic, work through
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> steps, be filmed, and fill in a survey tied to a uni research
>> >> >> >> >> project
>> >> >> >> >> (looking at the co-operator) we need to inform the group about
>> >> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> >> want to do and secure consent from them. With the time
>> >> >> >> >> constraints
>> >> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> >> could easily end up steam-rolling or running into resistance
>> >> >> >> >> unless
>> >> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> >> gain their understanding, trust and consent.
You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th with a new draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your draft of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on the 17 but superceded on the 18th?
I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
Hi Alex,
There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs had reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those comments in the email
Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you angry. I don't understand why.
Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only one reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM.
Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my attention to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise for the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
> reattached to this email.
> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft better
> and that you would take it home and review it.
> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >Hi Alex,
> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get back with any suggestions >later.
> >Chris
> The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
> >Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the explanation.
> >Chris
> If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
> you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
> number of times)
> If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
> this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and would
> review) and put the questions in the order you want and send it back
> to me so I can review it.
> Alex
> Alex
> >> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said was
> >> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted your
> >> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
> >> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
> >> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you -
> >> so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
> >> anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
> >> have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
> >> have done it in any other way.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > see interspersing below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> See interspersed
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email
> >> >> Record'
> >> >> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you sent is.
> >> >> > It's
> >> >> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are happy
> >> >> > with -
> >> >> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with this
> >> >> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as you
> >> >> > said.
> >> >> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
> >> >> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
> >> >> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me a
> >> >> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
> >> >> you.
> >> > The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be
> >> > reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached a
> >> > file
> >> > with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic to
> >> >> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because I
> >> >> >> cc
> >> >> >> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want her
> >> >> >> emails going public. If we want to include people in these
> >> >> >> discussions
> >> >> >> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
> >> >> >> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to
> >> >> >> Peta
> >> >> >> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
> >> >> >> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to do
> >> >> >> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable arrangement.
> >> >> >> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
> >> >> >> survey with new order.
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal
> >> >> >> > email to
> >> >> >> > ntw
> >> >> >> > post
> >> >> >> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I have
> >> >> >> > changed
> >> >> >> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on this posting,
> >> >> >> > gg
> >> >> >> > should
> >> >> >> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > sent
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
> >> >> >> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
> >> >> >> > better
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
> >> >> >> > explain
> >> >> >> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the
> >> >> >> > explanation.
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> >> >> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> >> >> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and
> >> >> >> >> opportunity
> >> >> >> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and
> >> >> >> >> graphing
> >> >> >> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow
> >> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached
> >> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it
> >> >> >> >> all a
> >> >> >> >> little easier to use.
> >> >> >> >> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual
> >> >> >> >> research
> >> >> >> >> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> >> >> >> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> >> >> >> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills
> >> >> >> >> (treasury,
> >> >> >> >> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process.
> >> >> >> >> With
> >> >> >> >> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached
> >> >> >> >> draft
> >> >> >> >> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the
> >> >> >> >> duties
> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator
> >> >> >> >> gets
> >> >> >> >> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard,
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft
> >> >> >> >> below
> >> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> >> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey
> >> >> >> >> past
> >> >> >> >> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> >> >> >> suggestions yet.
> >> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> >> 2009/3/17 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> >> > Robyn gave me feedback on the survey as per the green
Hi Chris,
I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
please forward it to me.
All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
Alex
2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th with a new
> draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your draft
> of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on the 17
> but superceded on the 18th?
> I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
> I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
> RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
> To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> Hi Alex,
> There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs had
> reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
> comments in the email
> Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From:
> Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> 1 attachment
> Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> I responded to this redraft with
> RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
> To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you angry.
> I don't understand why.
> Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only one
> reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March 2009
> 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March 2009
> 11:05:04 AM.
> Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my attention
> to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise for
> the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> Chris
>> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
>> reattached to this email.
>> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft better
>> and that you would take it home and review it.
>> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >Hi Alex,
>> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get back
>> > with any suggestions >later.
>> >Chris
>> The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
>> >Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better
>> > in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
>> > explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the
>> > explanation.
>> >Chris
>> If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
>> you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
>> number of times)
>> If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
>> this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and would
>> review) and put the questions in the order you want and send it back
>> to me so I can review it.
>> Alex
>> Alex
>> >> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said was
>> >> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted your
>> >> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
>> >> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
>> >> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you -
>> >> so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
>> >> anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
>> >> have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
>> >> have done it in any other way.
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > see interspersing below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> See interspersed
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email
>> >> >> Record'
>> >> >> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you
>> >> >> > sent is.
>> >> >> > It's
>> >> >> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are
>> >> >> > happy
>> >> >> > with -
>> >> >> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > said.
>> >> >> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
>> >> >> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
>> >> >> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
>> >> >> you.
>> >> > The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be
>> >> > reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached
>> >> > a
>> >> > file
>> >> > with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because
>> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> cc
>> >> >> >> to Robyn and invited her into the conversation and I didn't want
>> >> >> >> her
>> >> >> >> emails going public. If we want to include people in these
>> >> >> >> discussions
>> >> >> >> we have to be clear that they are public. Next time Robyn googles
>> >> >> >> herself she will find this conversation. This is what happened to
>> >> >> >> Peta
>> >> >> >> and she wasn't happy. In fact she probably wouldn't be happy for
>> >> >> >> Robyn's emails to be public as LMNC's CDW. I'm not sure what to
>> >> >> >> do
>> >> >> >> here we still don't seem to have an entirely workable
>> >> >> >> arrangement.
>> >> >> >> Re the survey - Those order changes are good. I have re attached
>> >> >> >> survey with new order.
>> >> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> >> > This was one of those emails which came from your personal
>> >> >> >> > email to
>> >> >> >> > ntw
>> >> >> >> > post
>> >> >> >> > instead of to gg. In adding to that conversation again now I
>> >> >> >> > have
>> >> >> >> > changed
>> >> >> >> > the address. Since all the postings appear below on
>> >> >> >> > this posting,
>> >> >> >> > gg
>> >> >> >> > should
>> >> >> >> > now have a full record. If you know of any other subjects which
>> >> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> > sent
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > ntwpost by mistake, perhaps you could just resend them to gg.
>> >> >> >> > Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might
>> >> >> >> > work
>> >> >> >> > better
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > the following reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > explain
>> >> >> >> > why let me know, but perhaps you will agree without the
>> >> >> >> > explanation.
>> >> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> >> To: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> >> >> >> >> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and
>> >> >> >> >> opportunity
>> >> >> >> >> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and
>> >> >> >> >> graphing
>> >> >> >> >> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not
>> >> >> >> >> allow
>> >> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> >> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft
>> >> >> >> >> attached
>> >> >> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> >> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it
>> >> >> >> >> all a
>> >> >> >> >> little easier to use.
I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the attachment I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will notice is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever you sent it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I responded.
I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what really happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you cut and pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of having an NTW record.
In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I earlier today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph order I suggested.
Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
little easier to use.
The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
suggestions yet.
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
> please forward it to me.
> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
> Alex
> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th with a new
> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your draft
> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on the 17
> > but superceded on the 18th?
> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> > Hi Alex,
> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs had
> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
> > comments in the email
> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> > From:
> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> > 1 attachment
> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> > I responded to this redraft with
> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you angry.
> > I don't understand why.
> > Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only one
> > reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March 2009
> > 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March 2009
> > 11:05:04 AM.
> > Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my attention
> > to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise for
> > the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> > Chris
> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
> >> reattached to this email.
> >> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft better
> >> and that you would take it home and review it.
> >> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> >Hi Alex,
> >> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get back
> >> > with any suggestions >later.
> >> >Chris
> >> The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
> >> >Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work better
> >> > in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
> >> > explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the
> >> > explanation.
> >> >Chris
> >> If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
> >> you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
> >> number of times)
> >> If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
> >> this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and would
> >> review) and put the questions in the order you want and send it back
> >> to me so I can review it.
> >> Alex
> >> Alex
> >> >> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said was
> >> >> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted your
> >> >> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
> >> >> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
> >> >> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you -
> >> >> so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
> >> >> anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
> >> >> have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
> >> >> have done it in any other way.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > see interspersing below
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> See interspersed
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> I have transfered the first part of this email to the topic 'Email
> >> >> >> Record'
> >> >> >> > Regarding the survey - I'm not sure what the attachment you
> >> >> >> > sent is.
> >> >> >> > It's
> >> >> >> > not the original, nor is it the version I reworked that you are
> >> >> >> > happy
> >> >> >> > with -
> >> >> >> > it's something quite different. I would have a few problems with
> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> > version, but I should wait to see if the one I sent you is Ok as
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > said.
> >> >> >> If you look back at the record you'll see that I sent you this same
> >> >> >> draft on the 17th of March and you emailed back that it was much
> >> >> >> better and you were taking a copy home to work on. Then you sent me
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> reshuffle of the order of the question which I did and sent back to
> >> >> >> you.
> >> >> > The re-order I gave was that the original questions 1-7 should be
> >> >> > reordered 6,5,1,2,3,7,4. You said you agreed with this but attached
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > file
> >> >> > with them reordered 7,3,6,5,1, 4, 2.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:01:40 -0700
> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> >> I just looked back at my outbox and I sent an email in this topic
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> gmail on the 16th of March which took gg out of the loop because
Hi Chris,
The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
the numbers?
I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
latest work and the latest development of the survey.
I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
one you are refering to.
Alex
2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex
> I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the attachment
> I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will notice
> is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever you sent
> it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I responded.
> I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what really
> happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you cut and
> pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of having an
> NTW record.
> In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I earlier
> today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph order I
> suggested.
> Chris
> Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> 1 attachment
> Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> little easier to use.
> The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> suggestions yet.
> Alex
>> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
>> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
>> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
>> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
>> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
>> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
>> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
>> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
>> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
>> please forward it to me.
>> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
>> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
>> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
>> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
>> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
>> Alex
>> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th with a
>> > new
>> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your
>> > draft
>> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on the
>> > 17
>> > but superceded on the 18th?
>> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
>> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
>> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
>> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
>> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs
>> > had
>> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
>> > comments in the email
>> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> > From:
>> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
>> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
>> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> > 1 attachment
>> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
>> > I responded to this redraft with
>> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
>> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
>> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you
>> > angry.
>> > I don't understand why.
>> > Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only
>> > one
>> > reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March
>> > 2009
>> > 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March 2009
>> > 11:05:04 AM.
>> > Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my
>> > attention
>> > to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise
>> > for
>> > the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
>> > Chris
>> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
>> >> reattached to this email.
>> >> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft better
>> >> and that you would take it home and review it.
>> >> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >> >Hi Alex,
>> >> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get back
>> >> > with any suggestions >later.
>> >> >Chris
>> >> The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
>> >> >Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
>> >> > better
>> >> > in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
>> >> > explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the
>> >> > explanation.
>> >> >Chris
>> >> If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
>> >> you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
>> >> number of times)
>> >> If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
>> >> this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and would
>> >> review) and put the questions in the order you want and send it back
>> >> to me so I can review it.
>> >> Alex
>> >> Alex
>> >> >> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
>> >> >> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
>> >> >> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most recent draft I sent you
>> >> >> -
>> >> >> so I have no idea what you want and am very hesitant of trying
>> >> >> anything else. Please open up the attachment look at the order you
>> >> >> have asked for in the top left corner and explain to me how I could
>> >> >> have done it in any other way.
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/3/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > see interspersing below
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:59 -0700
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:35:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
> I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
> the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
> with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
> would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
> the numbers?
> I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
> didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
> to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
> at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
> only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
> draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
> latest work and the latest development of the survey.
> I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
> work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
> referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
> sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
> questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
> is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
> and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
> that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
> one you are refering to.
> Alex
> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex
> > I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the attachment
> > I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will notice
> > is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever you sent
> > it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I responded.
> > I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what really
> > happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you cut and
> > pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of having an
> > NTW record.
> > In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I earlier
> > today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph order I
> > suggested.
> > Chris
> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> > From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> > 1 attachment
> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> > Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> > better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> > good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> > for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> > the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> > because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> > have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> > little easier to use.
> > The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> > question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> > innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> > doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> > chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> > the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> > I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> > facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> > there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> > the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> > so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> > my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> > suggestions yet.
> > Alex
> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
> >> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
> >> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
> >> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
> >> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
> >> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
> >> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
> >> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
> >> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
> >> please forward it to me.
> >> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
> >> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
> >> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
> >> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
> >> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th with a
> >> > new
> >> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your
> >> > draft
> >> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on the
> >> > 17
> >> > but superceded on the 18th?
> >> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
> >> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
> >> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs
> >> > had
> >> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
> >> > comments in the email
> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> > From:
> >> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> > 1 attachment
> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> >> > I responded to this redraft with
> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you
> >> > angry.
> >> > I don't understand why.
> >> > Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only
> >> > one
> >> > reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March
> >> > 2009
> >> > 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March 2009
> >> > 11:05:04 AM.
> >> > Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my
> >> > attention
> >> > to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise
> >> > for
> >> > the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
> >> >> reattached to this email.
> >> >> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft better
> >> >> and that you would take it home and review it.
> >> >> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> >> >Hi Alex,
> >> >> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get back
> >> >> > with any suggestions >later.
> >> >> >Chris
> >> >> The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
> >> >> >Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
> >> >> > better
> >> >> > in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me to
> >> >> > explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the
> >> >> > explanation.
> >> >> >Chris
> >> >> If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
> >> >> you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
> >> >> number of times)
> >> >> If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
> >> >> this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and would
> >> >> review) and put the questions in the order you want and send it back
> >> >> to me so I can review it.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> Attached is the original order draft I sent you (the one you said
> >> >> >> was
> >> >> >> much better, printed and took home). In this draft I have pasted
> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> reshuffle order in the top corner of the first Q. If you number all
> >> >> >> the Q 1-7 and reshuffle into the order you originally requested
> >> >> >> 6-5-1-2-3-7-4 the order you get is the most
Hi Chris,
I think it would be easier and safer all round if you just did the
reshuffle you want and sent it back to me. Don't worry if any
formatting is effected I can fix that.
Alex
2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> If you just open the attachment I send again now and apply those numbers to
> it you will see the changes I recommend.
> Chris
>> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:35:06 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
>> I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
>> the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
>> with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
>> would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
>> the numbers?
>> I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
>> didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
>> to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
>> at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
>> only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
>> draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
>> latest work and the latest development of the survey.
>> I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
>> work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
>> referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
>> sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
>> questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
>> is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
>> and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
>> that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
>> one you are refering to.
>> Alex
>> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex
>> > I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the
>> > attachment
>> > I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will
>> > notice
>> > is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever you
>> > sent
>> > it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I
>> > responded.
>> > I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what
>> > really
>> > happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you cut
>> > and
>> > pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of
>> > having an
>> > NTW record.
>> > In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I
>> > earlier
>> > today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph order
>> > I
>> > suggested.
>> > Chris
>> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> > From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
>> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
>> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> > 1 attachment
>> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
>> > Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
>> > better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> > good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
>> > for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
>> > the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
>> > because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
>> > have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
>> > little easier to use.
>> > The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
>> > question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
>> > innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
>> > doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
>> > chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
>> > the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
>> > I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
>> > facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
>> > there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
>> > the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
>> > so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
>> > my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
>> > suggestions yet.
>> > Alex
>> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
>> >> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
>> >> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
>> >> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
>> >> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
>> >> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
>> >> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
>> >> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
>> >> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
>> >> please forward it to me.
>> >> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
>> >> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
>> >> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
>> >> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
>> >> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th
>> >> > with a
>> >> > new
>> >> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your
>> >> > draft
>> >> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on
>> >> > the
>> >> > 17
>> >> > but superceded on the 18th?
>> >> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
>> >> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
>> >> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
>> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
>> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs
>> >> > had
>> >> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
>> >> > comments in the email
>> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> > From:
>> >> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
>> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
>> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> > 1 attachment
>> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
>> >> > I responded to this redraft with
>> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
>> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
>> >> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you
>> >> > angry.
>> >> > I don't understand why.
>> >> > Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only
>> >> > one
>> >> > reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March
>> >> > 2009
>> >> > 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March
>> >> > 2009
>> >> > 11:05:04 AM.
>> >> > Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my
>> >> > attention
>> >> > to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise
>> >> > for
>> >> > the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
>> >> >> reattached to this email.
>> >> >> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft
>> >> >> better
>> >> >> and that you would take it home and review it.
>> >> >> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
>> >> >> >Hi Alex,
>> >> >> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get
>> >> >> > back
>> >> >> > with any suggestions >later.
>> >> >> >Chris
>> >> >> The next email I got on the 19th from you requested the re-shuffle.
>> >> >> >Now regarding the survey form - I think the questions might work
>> >> >> > better
>> >> >> > in the following >reshuffled order - 6-5-1-2-3-7-4. If you want me
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > explain why let me know, but perhaps you >will agree without the
>> >> >> > explanation.
>> >> >> >Chris
>> >> >> If you open up this draft and reshuffle it in the order you requeted
>> >> >> you get the draft I sent you on the 19th. (I have checked this a
>> >> >> number of times)
>> >> >> If this is not the order you want then open up the draft attached to
>> >> >> this email (which goes back to the draft you said you liked and
Ok - will do. I'll just do it in sentences rather than try to work out the format. That's why I gave numbers rather than try to fiddle with the document you sent. I'll try to get to it tomorrow or over the weekend.
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:57:09 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> I think it would be easier and safer all round if you just did the
> reshuffle you want and sent it back to me. Don't worry if any
> formatting is effected I can fix that.
> Alex
> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > I have already explained what I understand.
> > If you just open the attachment I send again now and apply those numbers to
> > it you will see the changes I recommend.
> > Chris
> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:35:06 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
> >> I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
> >> the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
> >> with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
> >> would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
> >> the numbers?
> >> I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
> >> didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
> >> to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
> >> at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
> >> only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
> >> draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
> >> latest work and the latest development of the survey.
> >> I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
> >> work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
> >> referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
> >> sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
> >> questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
> >> is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
> >> and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
> >> that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
> >> one you are refering to.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex
> >> > I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the
> >> > attachment
> >> > I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will
> >> > notice
> >> > is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever you
> >> > sent
> >> > it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I
> >> > responded.
> >> > I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what
> >> > really
> >> > happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you cut
> >> > and
> >> > pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of
> >> > having an
> >> > NTW record.
> >> > In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I
> >> > earlier
> >> > today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph order
> >> > I
> >> > suggested.
> >> > Chris
> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> > From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> > 1 attachment
> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> >> > Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> > better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> > good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> >> > for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> >> > the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> >> > because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> >> > have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> >> > little easier to use.
> >> > The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> >> > question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> > innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> > doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> >> > chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> >> > the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> >> > I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> >> > facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> >> > there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> >> > the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> >> > so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> >> > my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> > suggestions yet.
> >> > Alex
> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
> >> >> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
> >> >> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
> >> >> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
> >> >> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
> >> >> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
> >> >> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
> >> >> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
> >> >> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
> >> >> please forward it to me.
> >> >> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
> >> >> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
> >> >> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
> >> >> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
> >> >> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th
> >> >> > with a
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your
> >> >> > draft
> >> >> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > 17
> >> >> > but superceded on the 18th?
> >> >> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
> >> >> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
> >> >> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs
> >> >> > had
> >> >> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
> >> >> > comments in the email
> >> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From:
> >> >> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> >> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > 1 attachment
> >> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> >> >> > I responded to this redraft with
> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> >> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you
> >> >> > angry.
> >> >> > I don't understand why.
> >> >> > Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March
> >> >> > 2009
> >> >> > 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March
> >> >> > 2009
> >> >> > 11:05:04 AM.
> >> >> > Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my
> >> >> > attention
> >> >> > to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:14:18 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris, On the 17th of March I sent you the exact draft I have
> >> >> >> reattached to this email.
> >> >> >> You responded on the same day saying that you liked this draft
> >> >> >> better
> >> >> >> and that you would take it home and review it.
> >> >> >> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:23:56 -0700
> >> >> >> >Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> >The new draft is much better. I've taken a hard copy and will get
> >> >> >> > back
This is the order I was thinking of as an improvement- what do you reckon?
Ability To Help Whole Group Participate (Time Sharing / Everyone Heard)
Ability To Keep Organising Enjoyable & Even Fun
Ability To Help Meeting Be Short, Focused & Productive (Group Stayed Within Agreed Topic)
Ability To Avoid Conflict & Improve Communication:
Ability To Make Jobs Clear & Accessible & Improve General Organisation
Ease Of Use (Clear Instructions)
As An Improvement On Other Processes You Have Used:
Chris
From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:06:29 +1100
Ok - will do. I'll just do it in sentences rather than try to work out the format. That's why I gave numbers rather than try to fiddle with the document you sent. I'll try to get to it tomorrow or over the weekend.
Chris
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:57:09 -0700
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> I think it would be easier and safer all round if you just did the
> reshuffle you want and sent it back to me. Don't worry if any
> formatting is effected I can fix that.
> Alex
> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > I have already explained what I understand.
> > If you just open the attachment I send again now and apply those numbers to
> > it you will see the changes I recommend.
> > Chris
> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:35:06 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
> >> I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
> >> the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
> >> with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
> >> would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
> >> the numbers?
> >> I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
> >> didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
> >> to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
> >> at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
> >> only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
> >> draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
> >> latest work and the latest development of the survey.
> >> I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
> >> work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
> >> referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
> >> sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
> >> questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
> >> is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
> >> and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
> >> that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
> >> one you are refering to.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex
> >> > I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the
> >> > attachment
> >> > I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will
> >> > notice
> >> > is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever you
> >> > sent
> >> > it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I
> >> > responded.
> >> > I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what
> >> > really
> >> > happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you cut
> >> > and
> >> > pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of
> >> > having an
> >> > NTW record.
> >> > In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I
> >> > earlier
> >> > today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph order
> >> > I
> >> > suggested.
> >> > Chris
> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> > From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> > 1 attachment
> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> >> > Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> > better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> > good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> >> > for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> >> > the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> >> > because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> >> > have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> >> > little easier to use.
> >> > The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual research
> >> > question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> > innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> > doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> >> > chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> >> > the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached draft
> >> > I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties a
> >> > facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> >> > there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard, that
> >> > the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> >> > so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> >> > my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> > suggestions yet.
> >> > Alex
> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
> >> >> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
> >> >> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle). This
> >> >> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
> >> >> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
> >> >> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email shows
> >> >> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
> >> >> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
> >> >> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th attached
> >> >> please forward it to me.
> >> >> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
> >> >> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
> >> >> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
> >> >> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the questions
> >> >> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th
> >> >> > with a
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to your
> >> >> > draft
> >> >> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > 17
> >> >> > but superceded on the 18th?
> >> >> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be reordered
> >> >> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
> >> >> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The inputs
> >> >> > had
> >> >> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating those
> >> >> > comments in the email
> >> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From:
> >> >> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> >> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > 1 attachment
> >> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> >> >> > I responded to this redraft with
> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> >> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making you
> >> >> > angry.
> >> >> > I don't understand why.
> >> >> > Your last draft said that you agreed with the reorder (there was only
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > reorder and it was a response to the last draft you sent on 18 March
> >> >> > 2009
> >> >> > 2:23:57 PM). My re-order of this draft was sent by me on 20 March
> >> >> > 2009
> >> >> > 11:05:04 AM.
> >> >> > Now if I am wrong you will need to quote the emails and bring my
> >> >> > attention
> >> >> > to any I've overlooked so I can know where we are up to and apologise
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > the confusion. If you are wrong it's up to you how you respond.
> Hi Alex,
> This is the order I was thinking of as an improvement- what do you reckon?
> Ability To Help Whole Group Participate (Time Sharing / Everyone Heard)
> Ability To Keep Organising Enjoyable & Even Fun
> Ability To Help Meeting Be Short, Focused & Productive (Group Stayed Within
> Agreed Topic)
> Ability To Avoid Conflict & Improve Communication:
> Ability To Make Jobs Clear & Accessible & Improve General Organisation
> Ease Of Use (Clear Instructions)
> As An Improvement On Other Processes You Have Used:
> Chris
> ________________________________
> From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:06:29 +1100
> Ok - will do. I'll just do it in sentences rather than try to work out the
> format. That's why I gave numbers rather than try to fiddle with the
> document you sent. I'll try to get to it tomorrow or over the weekend.
> Chris
>> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:57:09 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> I think it would be easier and safer all round if you just did the
>> reshuffle you want and sent it back to me. Don't worry if any
>> formatting is effected I can fix that.
>> Alex
>> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > I have already explained what I understand.
>> > If you just open the attachment I send again now and apply those numbers
>> > to
>> > it you will see the changes I recommend.
>> > Chris
>> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:35:06 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
>> >> I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
>> >> the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
>> >> with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
>> >> would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
>> >> the numbers?
>> >> I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
>> >> didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
>> >> to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
>> >> at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
>> >> only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
>> >> draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
>> >> latest work and the latest development of the survey.
>> >> I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
>> >> work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
>> >> referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
>> >> sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
>> >> questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
>> >> is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
>> >> and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
>> >> that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
>> >> one you are refering to.
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex
>> >> > I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the
>> >> > attachment
>> >> > I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will
>> >> > notice
>> >> > is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever
>> >> > you
>> >> > sent
>> >> > it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I
>> >> > responded.
>> >> > I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what
>> >> > really
>> >> > happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you
>> >> > cut
>> >> > and
>> >> > pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of
>> >> > having an
>> >> > NTW record.
>> >> > In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I
>> >> > earlier
>> >> > today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph
>> >> > order
>> >> > I
>> >> > suggested.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> > From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
>> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
>> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> > 1 attachment
>> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
>> >> > Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
>> >> > better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
>> >> > good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
>> >> > for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
>> >> > the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
>> >> > because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
>> >> > have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
>> >> > little easier to use.
>> >> > The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual
>> >> > research
>> >> > question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
>> >> > innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
>> >> > doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
>> >> > chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
>> >> > the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached
>> >> > draft
>> >> > I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties
>> >> > a
>> >> > facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
>> >> > there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard,
>> >> > that
>> >> > the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
>> >> > so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
>> >> > my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
>> >> > suggestions yet.
>> >> > Alex
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
>> >> >> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
>> >> >> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle).
>> >> >> This
>> >> >> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
>> >> >> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
>> >> >> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email
>> >> >> shows
>> >> >> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
>> >> >> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
>> >> >> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th
>> >> >> attached
>> >> >> please forward it to me.
>> >> >> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
>> >> >> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
>> >> >> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
>> >> >> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the
>> >> >> questions
>> >> >> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th
>> >> >> > with a
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > draft
>> >> >> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > 17
>> >> >> > but superceded on the 18th?
>> >> >> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be
>> >> >> > reordered
>> >> >> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
>> >> >> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
>> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> >> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
>> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The
>> >> >> > inputs
>> >> >> > had
>> >> >> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating
>> >> >> > those
>> >> >> > comments in the email
>> >> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> > From:
>> >> >> > Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
>> >> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
>> >> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> >> > 1 attachment
>> >> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
>> >> >> > I responded to this redraft with
>> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
>> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
>> >> >> > Sent:Friday, 20 March 2009 11:05:04 AM
>> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
>> >> >> > Now it sounds as though there is some confusion which is making
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > angry.
>> >> >> > I don't understand why.
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:23:41 +1100
> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> OK - I have re-attached the reshuffled order making this our lastest
> survey draft.
> Alex
> 2009/3/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > This is the order I was thinking of as an improvement- what do you reckon?
> > Ability To Help Whole Group Participate (Time Sharing / Everyone Heard)
> > Ability To Keep Organising Enjoyable & Even Fun
> > Ability To Help Meeting Be Short, Focused & Productive (Group Stayed Within
> > Agreed Topic)
> > Ability To Avoid Conflict & Improve Communication:
> > Ability To Make Jobs Clear & Accessible & Improve General Organisation
> > Ease Of Use (Clear Instructions)
> > As An Improvement On Other Processes You Have Used:
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:06:29 +1100
> > Ok - will do. I'll just do it in sentences rather than try to work out the
> > format. That's why I gave numbers rather than try to fiddle with the
> > document you sent. I'll try to get to it tomorrow or over the weekend.
> > Chris
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:57:09 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> I think it would be easier and safer all round if you just did the
> >> reshuffle you want and sent it back to me. Don't worry if any
> >> formatting is effected I can fix that.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > I have already explained what I understand.
> >> > If you just open the attachment I send again now and apply those numbers
> >> > to
> >> > it you will see the changes I recommend.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:35:06 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> The email you have cut and pasted only gives me the text I sent you -
> >> >> I can't open it to see the attachment. If you look at the wording of
> >> >> the text though it describes how I have replaced the numbering scale
> >> >> with the actual options - this is the change in the new draft so why
> >> >> would I send you a draft like the one you are using that still uses
> >> >> the numbers?
> >> >> I can assure you that I didn't cut and paste anything anywhere and I
> >> >> didn't send anything to your personal email address either - I've sent
> >> >> to your persoanl email very rarely and since the ntw gmail option not
> >> >> at all. If i did i would remember and have a copy in my outbox. The
> >> >> only record I've got is a draft sent on the 17th that contains the
> >> >> draft I keep referring you back to which is despite anything else my
> >> >> latest work and the latest development of the survey.
> >> >> I'm pretty well over talking about this. I have attached my latest
> >> >> work that represents a fair bit of effort since the draft you are
> >> >> referring to - for the reasons outlined in the very email you have
> >> >> sent back to me in your last email. If you don't like the order of the
> >> >> questions or if you don't like some of the wording in it or if there
> >> >> is something in the old draft that you like better please let me know
> >> >> and we can discuss that. I see no other option for proceeding given
> >> >> that the draft I'm referring to has been developed further than the
> >> >> one you are refering to.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex
> >> >> > I am pasting the whole email you sent me below. It contained the
> >> >> > attachment
> >> >> > I just sent you. The reason you can't find it in gg or gm as you will
> >> >> > notice
> >> >> > is because you sent it to my personal hotmail address. But wherever
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > sent
> >> >> > it to or from, it was the revised version you sent me to which I
> >> >> > responded.
> >> >> > I suspect the reason why the record you have does not represent what
> >> >> > really
> >> >> > happened is because after you sent mail to my personal address you
> >> >> > cut
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > pasted a copy of it into the gm email conversation for the sake of
> >> >> > having an
> >> >> > NTW record.
> >> >> > In any event, in this email you now have the correct history and I
> >> >> > earlier
> >> >> > today sent the attachment I worked from to give you the paragraph
> >> >> > order
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > suggested.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> > From: Alex Baumann (akme.baum...@gmail.com)
> >> >> > Sent:Wednesday, 18 March 2009 2:23:57 PM
> >> >> > To: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> > 1 attachment
> >> >> > Co-operat...doc (37.5 KB)
> >> >> > Hi Chris and Robyn, I agree that your wording for the choices is
> >> >> > better. The reason I had five choices - very poor poor neutral
> >> >> > good and very good is because it allows a full scale and opportunity
> >> >> > for a full range of feedback. This helps when analysing and graphing
> >> >> > the data. To drop the very poor as you suggested would not allow this
> >> >> > because there is no extreme negative option. In my draft attached I
> >> >> > have replaced the numbering with the actual choices to make it all a
> >> >> > little easier to use.
> >> >> > The new draft attached is I think better hinged on the actual
> >> >> > research
> >> >> > question as I understand it. As I was saying yesterday the real
> >> >> > innovation here is that the Co-operator provides a process that
> >> >> > doesn't rely on facilitation of other specialised skills (treasury,
> >> >> > chairing etc.) - in such it could be a real self-help process. With
> >> >> > the new questions (wording still a little rough) in the attached
> >> >> > draft
> >> >> > I have tried to ask how the process has fulfilled each of the duties
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > facilitator would usually take care of to see if the Co-operator gets
> >> >> > there. Things like making sure everyone had a chance to be heard,
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > the group stayed on topic etc. I have pasted the older draft below it
> >> >> > so that you can compare them. As I still have to run the survey past
> >> >> > my supervisor and an ethics committee there may be some more
> >> >> > suggestions yet.
> >> >> > Alex
> >> >> >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:30:12 -0700
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> I can find no record either in my outbox or in gg or in ntw gg of
> >> >> >> sending you this draft on the 18th. The draft I sent to you on the
> >> >> >> 17th is the last one I can find (other than after the reshuffle).
> >> >> >> This
> >> >> >> is also a much later draft than this one you send to me now so it
> >> >> >> would make no sense for me to have sent it to you on the 18th.
> >> >> >> Even the 'quoated text' that appears under your reshuffle email
> >> >> >> shows
> >> >> >> that you are directly replying to this 17th email I sent you on the
> >> >> >> with the draft I am referring to. If you have an email in your inbox
> >> >> >> from me on the 18th with the draft you say I sent on the 18th
> >> >> >> attached
> >> >> >> please forward it to me.
> >> >> >> All this aside the draft I have sent you is in fact my latest. I
> >> >> >> changed the format of the questions because, as I explained in the
> >> >> >> covering letter to it, I think it now does a far better job at being
> >> >> >> user friendly than the one you are working from. It asks the
> >> >> >> questions
> >> >> >> directly instead of asking for a more abstract scale.
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/3/23 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > You are ignoring the fact that you also sent an email on the 18th
> >> >> >> > with a
> >> >> >> > new
> >> >> >> > draft. It was this redraft that I responded to - I responded to
> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> > draft
> >> >> >> > of 18th on the 20th. Why would I respond to something you wrote on
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > 17
> >> >> >> > but superceded on the 18th?
> >> >> >> > I now re-attach your draft of 18th which I recommended be
> >> >> >> > reordered
> >> >> >> > 6-5-1-2-3-7-4.
> >> >> >> > I sent you an email record of this yesterday as follows -
> >> >> >> > RE: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> > From: Chris Baulman (chrisbaul...@hotmail.com)
> >> >> >> > Sent:Monday, 23 March 2009 10:52:13 AM
> >> >> >> > To: NTW (neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com)
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > There was an evolution of the draft with various comments. The
> >> >> >> > inputs
> >> >> >> > had
> >> >> >> > reached a point on 18.3 and you sent me a redraft incorporating
> >> >> >> > those
> >> >> >> > comments in the email
> >> >> >> > Re: Cooperator Research with the Over 50s
> >> >> >> > From:
> >> >> >> > Alex Baumann
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).
|
