myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right as it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that online is the best expression of the process we have developed and recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the poster still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions, for record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the poster and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated version of the 'cooperator'.
Chris
From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
Hi again Alex,
re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is better than where we were at with the Cooperator page at http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages an offline face to face process for meetings.)
On the Home page under 'Activities'
...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
& join an on-line discussionIf you agree, could you delete the link to that old Cooperator page and link instead to http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they will find a link to the new material on our home page.
Chris
From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:27:46 -0700
> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, see below
> 2009/10/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > see below
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:43:37 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard it is
> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on webpages.
> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
> > Yep - ok.
> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is a bit
> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone interested
> >> in using the process.
> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest would be
> > appropriate for them (See attached).
> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St as
> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
> neighbours.
> The website address is just an entry point for any new neighbourhoods
> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
> Community Builders.
> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for other
> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street example might
> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or that the
> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg. Hope
> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more people
> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of neighbourhoods was at
> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the 'instructions' to
> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
> OK
> > I was
> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
> >> See attached idea
> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
> >> > The main entry point would be http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
> >> > This is the address that I would promote through the posters. It's not
> >> > the
> >> > simplest address, but we could use your idea of 'tear offs' - no address
> >> > will be simple enough anyhow.
> >> > One thing that I am keen to keep in mind is that ultimately this is also
> >> > about bringing people to NTW, so at least this address makes that
> >> > connection.
> >> > Once visitors are familiar with the site/s they are likely to bookmark
> >> > the
> >> > page they want to use and go straight to their PBworks page or GG or
> >> > whatever.
> >> > The 2 PBworks addresses should give protection against editing of the
> >> > pages
> >> > at myneighbourhood.pbworks as 'read only' as well as full editing
> >> > ownership
> >> > by neighbours of hopestreet.pbworks. Other info that we link to is
> >> > either
> >> > in GG or NTW and is thus protected.
> >> > I've made the changes you suggested. Let me know what you think. I'm
> >> > about
> >> > to start working on the presentation to LETS and of course this will all
> >> > be
> >> > part of that.
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:17:39 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> The pathways seem to include
> >> >> 1. hope st - poster refers people to easy address where they can chat,
> >> >> see what's on, add to what's on and cooperate effectively (the
> >> >> co-operator)
> >> >> 2. The my neighbourhood page is for people wanting to set up their own
> >> >> process. This should contain an intro, an example(perhaps Hope St or
> >> >> perhaps a stagnant example), instructions and templates (this could be
> >> >> promoted by community builders)
> >> >> Does this cover it? 2. would seem to work for people who just want to
> >> >> see the merit of the idea like Peta etc.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/10/11 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> > ok - see new
> >> >> > 2009/10/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> Hi Alex - I sent you the wrong attachment yesterday - could you load
> >> >> >> the one
> >> >> >> attached now.
> >> >> >> Thanks Chris
> >> >> >> Sorry Alex - cancel that last reload because there is a mistake in
> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> attached is corrected.
> >> >> >> Chris
> >> >> >>> 2009/10/6 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >>> > Hi Alex, see attached
> >> >> >>> > Chris
> >> >> >>> > ps could you contact me about when to collect Eli tomorrow - is
> >> >> >>> > 10
> >> >> >>> > or
> >> >> >>> > 10.30
> >> >> >>> > about right?
> >> >> >>> > ________________________________
> >> >> >>> > Find out how here Get Hotmail on your iPhone
> >> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> >> Find out how here Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox
> >> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> >> Find out how here Get Hotmail on your iPhone
Find out how here Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox
Find out how here Get Hotmail on your iPhone
_________________________________________________________________
Take a peek at other people's pay and perks Check out The Great Australian Pay Check
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:41:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> You accidentally sent the original document you sent to me
> Alex
> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > I think it is pretty good - just a coma missing - see attached.
> > I think it will work as an intro for people no matter where they are coming
> > from.
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:41:48 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> I don't have any other ideas for the hierarchy sentance for now so I'm
> >> happy to just leave the wording you use in the attached draft for now.
> >> There are a couple of other points in the attachement however. I've
> >> included your first draft under my new one with a note where I've made
> >> a change.
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > I think the attached incorporates what we have done so far on line and
> >> > face
> >> > to face at your place.
> >> > The outstanding issue is 'hierarchy'.
> >> > If you accept that 'leadership' and 'hierarchy' is so much part of our
> >> > very existence (including your's and mine) that we tend to carelessly
> >> > slip
> >> > into it, then I can't see how saying "This helps neighbours to go from
> >> > informal chats to informal organisation in a cooperative way that shares
> >> > roles" would begin to address the problem I have described.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:28:34 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris, I've responded in the attached but I think we might have our
> >> >> wires crossed in this discussion. As I try to explain in the
> >> >> attachment I'm not talking about whether they go to the forum as a
> >> >> first point of organising or not. My reference to starting at pb works
> >> >> is a reference to the pbworks open page only that lets them see what's
> >> >> on and takes them to the chat space as the first port of call for
> >> >> cooperating. My point is only that pb works rather than the html file
> >> >> seems like the logical place for the poster to refer hope streeters to
> >> >> and that the html file is for everyone else.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/10/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > see attached
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
> >> >> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard
> >> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on
> >> >> >> >> webpages.
> >> >> >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
> >> >> >> > Yep - ok.
> >> >> >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
> >> >> >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is
> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> bit
> >> >> >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone
> >> >> >> >> interested
> >> >> >> >> in using the process.
> >> >> >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
> >> >> >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest
> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
> >> >> >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
> >> >> >> neighbours.
> >> >> >> The website address is just an entry point for any new
> >> >> >> neighbourhoods
> >> >> >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
> >> >> >> Community Builders.
> >> >> >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
> >> >> >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for
> >> >> >> > other
> >> >> >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street
> >> >> >> > example
> >> >> >> > might
> >> >> >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg.
> >> >> >> > Hope
> >> >> >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
> >> >> >> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
> >> >> >> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
> >> >> >> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more
> >> >> >> >> people
> >> >> >> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
> >> >> >> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of neighbourhoods
> >> >> >> > was
> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the
> >> >> >> > 'instructions'
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
> >> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> > I was
> >> >> >> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
> >> >> >> >> See attached idea
> >> >> >> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
> >> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
> >> >> >> >> > The main entry point would be
> >> >> >> >> > http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
> >> >> >> >> > This is the address that I would promote through the posters.
> >> >> >> >> > It's
> >> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > simplest address, but we could use your idea of 'tear offs' -
> >> >> >> >> > no
> >> >> >> >> > address
> >> >> >> >> > will be simple enough anyhow.
> >> >> >> >> > One thing that I am keen to keep in mind is that ultimately
> >> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> > also
> >> >> >> >> > about bringing people to NTW, so at least this address makes
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > connection.
> >> >> >> >> > Once visitors are familiar with the site/s they are likely to
> >> >> >> >> > bookmark
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > page they want to use and go straight to their PBworks page or
> >> >> >> >> > GG
> >> >> >> >> > or
> >> >> >> >> > whatever.
> >> >> >> >> > The 2 PBworks addresses should give protection against editing
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > pages
> >> >> >> >> > at myneighbourhood.pbworks as 'read only' as well as full
> >> >> >> >> > editing
> >> >> >> >> > ownership
> >> >> >> >> > by neighbours of hopestreet.pbworks. Other info that we link to
> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> > either
> >> >> >> >> > in GG or NTW and is thus protected.
> >> >> >> >> > I've made the changes you suggested. Let me know what you
> >> >> >> >> > think.
> >> >> >> >> > I'm
> >> >> >> >> > about
> >> >> >> >> > to start working on the presentation to LETS and of course this
> >> >> >> >> > will
> >> >> >> >> > all
> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> > part of that.
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris
> >> >> >> >> >> The pathways seem to include
> >> >> >> >> >> 1. hope st - poster refers people to easy address where they
> >> >> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> >> >> chat,
> >> >> >> >> >> see what's on, add to what's on and cooperate effectively (the
> >> >> >> >> >> co-operator)
> >> >> >> >> >> 2. The my neighbourhood page is for people wanting to set up
> >> >> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> >> >> own
> >> >> >> >> >> process. This should contain an intro, an example(perhaps Hope
> >> >> >> >> >> St
> >> >> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> >> >> perhaps a stagnant example), instructions and templates (this
> >> >> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> >> >> promoted by community builders)
> >> >> >> >> >> Does this cover it? 2. would seem to work for people who just
> >> >> >> >> >> want
> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> see the merit of the idea like Peta etc.
> >> >> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> >> >> 2009/10/11 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> > ok - see new
> >> >> >> >> >> > 2009/10/8 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Alex - I sent
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:41:30 -0700
>> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> You accidentally sent the original document you sent to me
>> Alex
>> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > I think it is pretty good - just a coma missing - see attached.
>> > I think it will work as an intro for people no matter where they are
>> > coming
>> > from.
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:41:48 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> I don't have any other ideas for the hierarchy sentance for now so I'm
>> >> happy to just leave the wording you use in the attached draft for now.
>> >> There are a couple of other points in the attachement however. I've
>> >> included your first draft under my new one with a note where I've made
>> >> a change.
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > I think the attached incorporates what we have done so far on line
>> >> > and
>> >> > face
>> >> > to face at your place.
>> >> > The outstanding issue is 'hierarchy'.
>> >> > If you accept that 'leadership' and 'hierarchy' is so much part of
>> >> > our
>> >> > very existence (including your's and mine) that we tend to carelessly
>> >> > slip
>> >> > into it, then I can't see how saying "This helps neighbours to go
>> >> > from
>> >> > informal chats to informal organisation in a cooperative way that
>> >> > shares
>> >> > roles" would begin to address the problem I have described.
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:28:34 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris, I've responded in the attached but I think we might have
>> >> >> our
>> >> >> wires crossed in this discussion. As I try to explain in the
>> >> >> attachment I'm not talking about whether they go to the forum as a
>> >> >> first point of organising or not. My reference to starting at pb
>> >> >> works
>> >> >> is a reference to the pbworks open page only that lets them see
>> >> >> what's
>> >> >> on and takes them to the chat space as the first port of call for
>> >> >> cooperating. My point is only that pb works rather than the html
>> >> >> file
>> >> >> seems like the logical place for the poster to refer hope streeters
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> and that the html file is for everyone else.
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/10/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > see attached
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point
>> >> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have
>> >> >> >> >> heard
>> >> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on
>> >> >> >> >> webpages.
>> >> >> >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
>> >> >> >> > Yep - ok.
>> >> >> >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
>> >> >> >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> >> bit
>> >> >> >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone
>> >> >> >> >> interested
>> >> >> >> >> in using the process.
>> >> >> >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope
>> >> >> >> > St
>> >> >> >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you
>> >> >> >> > suggest
>> >> >> >> > would
>> >> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
>> >> >> >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope
>> >> >> >> St
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
>> >> >> >> neighbours.
>> >> >> >> The website address is just an entry point for any new
>> >> >> >> neighbourhoods
>> >> >> >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
>> >> >> >> Community Builders.
>> >> >> >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
>> >> >> >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for
>> >> >> >> > other
>> >> >> >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street
>> >> >> >> > example
>> >> >> >> > might
>> >> >> >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours'
>> >> >> >> > eg.
>> >> >> >> > Hope
>> >> >> >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
>> >> >> >> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
>> >> >> >> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
>> >> >> >> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more
>> >> >> >> >> people
>> >> >> >> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
>> >> >> >> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of
>> >> >> >> > neighbourhoods
>> >> >> >> > was
>> >> >> >> > at
>> >> >> >> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the
>> >> >> >> > 'instructions'
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
>> >> >> >> OK
>> >> >> >> > I was
>> >> >> >> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
>> >> >> >> >> See attached idea
>> >> >> >> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
>> >> >> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> >> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> >> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
>> >> >> >> >> > The main entry point would be
>> >> >> >> >> > http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
>> >> >> >> >> > This is the address that I would promote through the
>> >> >> >> >> > posters.
>> >> >> >> >> > It's
>> >> >> >> >> > not
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > simplest address, but we could use your idea of 'tear offs'
>> >> >> >> >> > -
>> >> >> >> >> > no
>> >> >> >> >> > address
>> >> >> >> >> > will be simple enough anyhow.
>> >> >> >> >> > One thing that I am keen to keep in mind is that ultimately
>> >> >> >> >> > this
>> >> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> >> > also
>> >> >> >> >> > about bringing people to NTW, so at least this address makes
>> >> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> >> > connection.
>> >> >> >> >> > Once visitors are familiar with the site/s they are likely
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > bookmark
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > page they want to use and go straight to their PBworks page
>> >> >> >> >> > or
>> >> >> >> >> > GG
>> >> >> >> >> > or
>> >> >> >> >> > whatever.
>> >> >> >> >> > The 2 PBworks addresses should give protection against
>> >> >> >> >> > editing
>> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > pages
>> >> >> >> >> > at myneighbourhood.pbworks as 'read only' as well as full
>> >> >> >> >> > editing
>> >> >> >> >> > ownership
>> >> >> >> >> > by neighbours of hopestreet.pbworks. Other info that we link
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> >> > either
>> >> >> >> >> > in GG or NTW and is thus protected.
>> >> >> >> >> > I've made the changes you suggested. Let me know what you
>> >> >> >> >> > think.
>> >> >> >> >> > I'm
>> >> >> >> >> > about
>> >> >> >> >> > to start working on the presentation to LETS and of course
>> >> >> >> >> > this
>> >> >> >> >> > will
>> >> >> >> >> > all
>> >> >> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> >> > part of that.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> >> >> >> The pathways seem to include
>> >> >> >> >> >> 1. hope st - poster refers people to easy address where
>> >> >> >> >> >> they
>> >> >> >> >> >> can
>> >> >> >> >> >> chat,
>> >> >> >> >> >> see what's on, add to what's on and cooperate effectively
>> >> >> >> >> >> (the
>> >> >> >> >> >> co-operator)
>> >> >> >> >> >> 2. The my neighbourhood page is for people wanting to set
>> >> >> >> >> >> up
>> >> >> >> >> >> their
>> >> >> >> >> >> own
>> >> >> >> >> >> process. This should contain an intro, an example(perhaps
> 2009/10/28 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Soory - see attached
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:41:30 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> You accidentally sent the original document you sent to me
> >> Alex
> >> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > I think it is pretty good - just a coma missing - see attached.
> >> > I think it will work as an intro for people no matter where they are
> >> > coming
> >> > from.
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:41:48 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> I don't have any other ideas for the hierarchy sentance for now so I'm
> >> >> happy to just leave the wording you use in the attached draft for now.
> >> >> There are a couple of other points in the attachement however. I've
> >> >> included your first draft under my new one with a note where I've made
> >> >> a change.
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > I think the attached incorporates what we have done so far on line
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > face
> >> >> > to face at your place.
> >> >> > The outstanding issue is 'hierarchy'.
> >> >> > If you accept that 'leadership' and 'hierarchy' is so much part of
> >> >> > our
> >> >> > very existence (including your's and mine) that we tend to carelessly
> >> >> > slip
> >> >> > into it, then I can't see how saying "This helps neighbours to go
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > informal chats to informal organisation in a cooperative way that
> >> >> > shares
> >> >> > roles" would begin to address the problem I have described.
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> Hi Chris, I've responded in the attached but I think we might have
> >> >> >> our
> >> >> >> wires crossed in this discussion. As I try to explain in the
> >> >> >> attachment I'm not talking about whether they go to the forum as a
> >> >> >> first point of organising or not. My reference to starting at pb
> >> >> >> works
> >> >> >> is a reference to the pbworks open page only that lets them see
> >> >> >> what's
> >> >> >> on and takes them to the chat space as the first port of call for
> >> >> >> cooperating. My point is only that pb works rather than the html
> >> >> >> file
> >> >> >> seems like the logical place for the poster to refer hope streeters
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> and that the html file is for everyone else.
> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> 2009/10/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> > see attached
> >> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> >> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point
> >> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have
> >> >> >> >> >> heard
> >> >> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on
> >> >> >> >> >> webpages.
> >> >> >> >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
> >> >> >> >> > Yep - ok.
> >> >> >> >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
> >> >> >> >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page
> >> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> >> bit
> >> >> >> >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone
> >> >> >> >> >> interested
> >> >> >> >> >> in using the process.
> >> >> >> >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope
> >> >> >> >> > St
> >> >> >> >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you
> >> >> >> >> > suggest
> >> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
> >> >> >> >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope
> >> >> >> >> St
> >> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
> >> >> >> >> neighbours.
> >> >> >> >> The website address is just an entry point for any new
> >> >> >> >> neighbourhoods
> >> >> >> >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
> >> >> >> >> Community Builders.
> >> >> >> >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
> >> >> >> >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for
> >> >> >> >> > other
> >> >> >> >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street
> >> >> >> >> > example
> >> >> >> >> > might
> >> >> >> >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours'
> >> >> >> >> > eg.
> >> >> >> >> > Hope
> >> >> >> >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
> >> >> >> >> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
> >> >> >> >> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
> >> >> >> >> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more
> >> >> >> >> >> people
> >> >> >> >> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
> >> >> >> >> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of
> >> >> >> >> > neighbourhoods
> >> >> >> >> > was
> >> >> >> >> > at
> >> >> >> >> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the
> >> >> >> >> > 'instructions'
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
> >> >> >> >> OK
> >> >> >> >> > I was
> >> >> >> >> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
> >> >> >> >> >> See attached idea
> >> >> >> >> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
> >> >> >> >> >> Alex
> >> >> >> >> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> >> >> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
> >> >> >> >> >> > The main entry point would be
> >> >> >> >> >> > http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
> >> >> >> >> >> > This is the address that I would promote through the
> >> >> >> >> >> > posters.
> >> >> >> >> >> > It's
> >> >> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > simplest address, but we could use your idea of 'tear offs'
> >> >> >> >> >> > -
> >> >> >> >> >> > no
> >> >> >> >> >> > address
> >> >> >> >> >> > will be simple enough anyhow.
> >> >> >> >> >> > One thing that I am keen to keep in mind is that ultimately
> >> >> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> >> > also
> >> >> >> >> >> > about bringing people to NTW, so at least this address makes
> >> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> >> > connection.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Once visitors are familiar with the site/s they are likely
> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> > bookmark
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > page they want to use and go straight to their PBworks page
> >> >> >> >> >> > or
> >> >> >> >> >> > GG
> >> >> >> >> >> > or
> >> >> >> >> >> > whatever.
> >> >> >> >> >> > The 2 PBworks addresses should give protection against
> >> >> >> >> >> > editing
> >> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > pages
> >> >> >> >> >> > at myneighbourhood.pbworks as 'read only' as well as full
> >> >> >> >> >> > editing
> >> >> >> >> >> > ownership
> >> >> >> >> >> > by neighbours of hopestreet.pbworks. Other info that we link
> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> >> > either
> >> >> >> >> >> > in GG or NTW and is thus protected.
> >> >> >> >> >> > I've made the changes you suggested. Let me know what you
> >> >> >> >> >> > think.
> >> >> >> >> >> > I'm
> >> >> >> >> >> > about
> >> >> >> >> >> > to start working on the presentation to LETS and of course
> >> >> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> >> >> > will
> >> >> >> >> >> > all
> >> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> >> > part of that.
2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
> 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
> When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
> opening page, the link
> "Use the Co-operator Forum"
> is no longer right - neither is the link
> "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
> myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
> face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
> emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right as
> it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
> online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
> recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
> using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
> to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the poster
> still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions, for
> record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the poster
> and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
> version of the 'cooperator'.
Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
will be reviewed.
That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
concerned the online process is still very much in development which
is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
first?
> ________________________________
> From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
> Hi again Alex,
> re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
> I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is better
> than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
> http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
> an offline face to face process for meetings.)
> On the Home page under 'Activities'
> ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
> & join an on-line discussion
> I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they will
> find a link to the new material on our home page.
> Chris
> ________________________________
> From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
> Hi Alex,
> see attached
> Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:27:46 -0700
>> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, see below
>> 2009/10/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > see below
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:43:37 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
>> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard it is
>> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on webpages.
>> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
>> > Yep - ok.
>> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
>> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is a bit
>> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone interested
>> >> in using the process.
>> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
>> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest would
>> > be
>> > appropriate for them (See attached).
>> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St as
>> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
>> neighbours.
>> The website address is just an entry point for any new neighbourhoods
>> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
>> Community Builders.
>> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
>> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for other
>> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street example
>> > might
>> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or that the
>> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg. Hope
>> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
>> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
>> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
>> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more people
>> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
>> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of neighbourhoods was
>> > at
>> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the 'instructions'
>> > to
>> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
>> OK
>> > I was
>> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
>> >> See attached idea
>> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
>> >> Alex
>> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
>> >> > The main entry point would be
>> >> > http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
>> >> > This is the address that I would promote through the posters. It's
>> >> > not
>> >> > the
>> >> > simplest address, but we could use your idea of 'tear offs' - no
>> >> > address
>> >> > will be simple enough anyhow.
>> >> > One thing that I am keen to keep in mind is that ultimately this is
>> >> > also
>> >> > about bringing people to NTW, so at least this address makes that
>> >> > connection.
>> >> > Once visitors are familiar with the site/s they are likely to
>> >> > bookmark
>> >> > the
>> >> > page they want to use and go straight to their PBworks page or GG or
>> >> > whatever.
>> >> > The 2 PBworks addresses should give protection against editing of the
>> >> > pages
>> >> > at myneighbourhood.pbworks as 'read only' as well as full editing
>> >> > ownership
>> >> > by neighbours of hopestreet.pbworks. Other info that we link to is
>> >> > either
>> >> > in GG or NTW and is thus protected.
>> >> > I've made the changes you suggested. Let me know what you think. I'm
>> >> > about
>> >> > to start working on the presentation to LETS and of course this will
>> >> > all
>> >> > be
>> >> > part of that.
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:17:39 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris
>> >> >> The pathways seem to include
>> >> >> 1. hope st - poster refers people to easy address where they can
>> >> >> chat,
>> >> >> see what's on, add to what's on and cooperate effectively (the
>> >> >> co-operator)
>> >> >> 2. The my neighbourhood page is for people wanting to set up their
>> >> >> own
>> >> >> process. This should contain an intro, an example(perhaps Hope St or
>> >> >> perhaps a stagnant example), instructions
I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined - but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
Chris
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, see below
> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
> > opening page, the link
> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
> > is no longer right - neither is the link
> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right as
> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the poster
> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions, for
> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the poster
> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
> > version of the 'cooperator'.
> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
> will be reviewed.
> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
> could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
> first?
> Alex
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
> > Hi again Alex,
> > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
> > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is better
> > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
> > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
> > On the Home page under 'Activities'
> > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
> > & join an on-line discussion
> > I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they will
> > find a link to the new material on our home page.
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
> > Hi Alex,
> > see attached
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:27:46 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, see below
> >> 2009/10/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:43:37 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard it is
> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on webpages.
> >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
> >> > Yep - ok.
> >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
> >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is a bit
> >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone interested
> >> >> in using the process.
> >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
> >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest would
> >> > be
> >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
> >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St as
> >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
> >> neighbours.
> >> The website address is just an entry point for any new neighbourhoods
> >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
> >> Community Builders.
> >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
> >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for other
> >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street example
> >> > might
> >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or that the
> >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg. Hope
> >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
> >> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
> >> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
> >> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more people
> >> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
> >> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of neighbourhoods was
> >> > at
> >> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the 'instructions'
> >> > to
> >> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
> >> OK
> >> > I was
> >> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
> >> >> See attached idea
> >> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
> >> >> Alex
> >> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
> >> >> > The main entry point would be
> >> >> > http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm
> >> >> > This is the address that I would promote through the posters. It's
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > simplest address, but we could use your idea of 'tear offs' - no
> >> >> > address
> >> >> > will be simple enough anyhow.
> >> >> > One thing that I am keen to keep in mind is that ultimately this is
> >> >> > also
> >> >> > about bringing people to NTW, so at least this address makes that
> I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be
> those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When
> they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
> The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
> promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment
> box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined -
> but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense
> for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
> If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable
> for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what
> we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new
> NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
> Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, see below
>> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
>> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
>> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
>> > opening page, the link
>> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
>> > is no longer right - neither is the link
>> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
>> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
>> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
>> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right
>> > as
>> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
>> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
>> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
>> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
>> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the
>> > poster
>> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions,
>> > for
>> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the
>> > poster
>> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
>> > version of the 'cooperator'.
>> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
>> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
>> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
>> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
>> will be reviewed.
>> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
>> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
>> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
>> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
>> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
>> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
>> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
>> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
>> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
>> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
>> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
>> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
>> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
>> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
>> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
>> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
>> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
>> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
>> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
>> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
>> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
>> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
>> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
>> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
>> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
>> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
>> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
>> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
>> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
>> could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
>> first?
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
>> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
>> > Hi again Alex,
>> > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
>> > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is
>> > better
>> > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
>> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
>> > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
>> > On the Home page under 'Activities'
>> > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
>> > & join an on-line discussion
>> > I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they
>> > will
>> > find a link to the new material on our home page.
>> > Chris
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
>> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > see attached
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:27:46 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris, see below
>> >> 2009/10/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:43:37 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
>> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard it
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on
>> >> >> webpages.
>> >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
>> >> > Yep - ok.
>> >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
>> >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is a
>> >> >> bit
>> >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone
>> >> >> interested
>> >> >> in using the process.
>> >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
>> >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest
>> >> > would
>> >> > be
>> >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
>> >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St as
>> >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
>> >> neighbours.
>> >> The website address is just an entry point for any new neighbourhoods
>> >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
>> >> Community Builders.
>> >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
>> >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for other
>> >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street
>> >> > example
>> >> > might
>> >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or that
>> >> > the
>> >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg.
>> >> > Hope
>> >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
>> >> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
>> >> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
>> >> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more
>> >> >> people
>> >> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
>> >> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of neighbourhoods
>> >> > was
>> >> > at
>> >> > the foot of them would it? They would have to go past the
>> >> > 'instructions'
>> >> > to
>> >> > find their neighbourhood link in the list.
>> >> OK
>> >> > I was
>> >> >> thinking it might work better to shift the emphasis a bit.
>> >> >> See attached idea
>> >> I have responded to your points and re-attached the document
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >> 2009/10/13 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> >> > I think I have the links, info and protections pretty right.
>> >> >> > The main entry point would be
I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site is a
mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it very
difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get there!
I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I
clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found myself on
what looked like a different site all together. This is just not working for
me, I don't know about anyone else.
I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average person
to negotiate.
Keith.
2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
> I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be
> those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When
> they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
> The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
> promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment
> box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined -
> but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense
> for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
> If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable
> for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what
> we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new
> NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
> Chris
> > From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
> > Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > Hi Chris, see below
> > 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > > Hi Alex,
> > > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
> > > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
> > > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
> > > opening page, the link
> > > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
> > > is no longer right - neither is the link
> > > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
> > > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator
> poster, the
> > > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
> > > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right
> as
> > > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
> > > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
> > > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the
> difficulties of
> > > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
> > > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the
> poster
> > > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions,
> for
> > > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the
> poster
> > > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
> > > version of the 'cooperator'.
> > Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
> > Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
> > the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
> > will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
> > will be reviewed.
> > That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
> > myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
> > poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
> > accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
> > lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
> > While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
> > still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
> > people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
> > and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
> > for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
> > unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
> > wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
> > paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
> > accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
> > that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
> > coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
> > out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
> > which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
> > the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
> > Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
> > online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
> > f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
> > so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
> > concerned the online process is still very much in development which
> > is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
> > basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
> > is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
> > myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
> > integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
> > could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
> > first?
> > Alex
> > > Chris
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> > > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
> > > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
> > > Hi again Alex,
> > > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
> > > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is
> better
> > > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
> > > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
> > > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
> > > On the Home page under 'Activities'
> > > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
> > > & join an on-line discussion
> > >> >> Hi Chris,
> > >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
> > >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard
> it is
> > >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on
> webpages.
> > >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
> > >> > Yep - ok.
> > >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
> > >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is a
> bit
> > >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone
> interested
> > >> >> in using the process.
> > >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
> > >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest
> would
> > >> > be
> > >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
> > >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St as
> > >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
> > >> neighbours.
> > >> The website address is just an entry point for any new neighbourhoods
> > >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
> > >> Community Builders.
> > >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
> > >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for other
> > >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street
> example
> > >> > might
> > >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or that
> the
> > >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg.
> Hope
> > >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
> > >> I'm not really understanding your concern here.
> > >> > I know you invite other streets to submit their
> > >> >> address but this would soon become unworkable as more and more
> people
> > >> >> did it and the generic stuff like the templates was lost.
> > >> > The templates would not get lost if the listings of neighbourhoods
> was
> > >> > at
> > >> > the foot of
Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier for the average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
We referred to a couple of sites http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page leading people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet. Which site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can know that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the journey became hard.
Chris
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +1100
Subject: Re: The Cooperator
From: historicaltrek...@gmail.com
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site is a mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it very difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get there!
I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found myself on what looked like a different site all together. This is just not working for me, I don't know about anyone else.
I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average person to negotiate.
Keith.
2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
Hi Alex,
Yes I agree with all you say below.
I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined - but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, see below
> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
> > opening page, the link
> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
> > is no longer right - neither is the link
> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right as
> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the poster
> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions, for
> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the poster
> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
> > version of the 'cooperator'.
> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
> will be reviewed.
> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
> could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
> first?
> Alex
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
> > Hi again Alex,
> > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
> > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is better
> > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
> > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
> > On the Home page under 'Activities'
> > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
> > & join an on-line discussion
> > I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they will
> > find a link to the new material on our home page.
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
> > Hi Alex,
> > see attached
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:27:46 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, see below
> >> 2009/10/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > see below
> >> > Chris
> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:43:37 -0700
> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> >> Hi Chris,
> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard it is
> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be underlined on webpages.
> >> >> Otherwise people think that they should be active links.
> >> > Yep - ok.
> >> OK - I'll remove underlines that aren't links
> >> >> I was also thinking that the emphasis on Hope St on this page is a bit
> >> >> strange considering that it is an arrival point for anyone interested
> >> >> in using the process.
> >> > I reckon we need to get Hope Street going before anything. Hope St
> >> > neighbours need an entry point. I don't think the one you suggest would
> >> > be
> >> > appropriate for them (See attached).
> >> I thought we could just use the direct pbworks address for Hope St as
> >> other neigbourhoods will need to do on their posters to their
> >> neighbours.
> >> The website address is just an entry point for any new neighbourhoods
> >> or community workers or whatever that can be used on sites like
> >> Community Builders.
> >> > In one way, perhaps two separate entry
> >> > points would be better , but having a separate entry point for other
> >> > neighbourhoods where they are referred back to the Hope Street example
> >> > might
> >> > tend to somewhat endorse the idea that a leader is required or that the
> >> > technology is the property of NTW rather than of 'neighbours' eg. Hope
> >> > Street (or your street) neighbours.
Hi Chris,
I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone who
just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
I've set up something at:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/hopestreet-blaxland
To support other streets to set one up at the myneighbourhood html
page we would simply have to show them how to sign up for a gg and
then how to make a priority post (which is a matter of simply doing a
post and ticking one box) and offer them the what's on template and
the steps for organising. Beyond that anyone can come an contribute
pretty easily and see what's going on. For now this seems the most
straight forward.
Alex
2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier for the
> average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
> We referred to a couple of sites
> http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about
> anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page leading
> people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about
> something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet. Which
> site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can know
> that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the
> journey became hard.
> Chris
> ________________________________
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +1100
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> From: historicaltrek...@gmail.com
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site is a
> mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it very
> difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get there!
> I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I
> clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found myself on
> what looked like a different site all together. This is just not working for
> me, I don't know about anyone else.
> I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average person
> to negotiate.
> Keith.
> 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
> Hi Alex,
> Yes I agree with all you say below.
> I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be
> those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When
> they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
> The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
> promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment
> box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined -
> but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense
> for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
> If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable
> for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what
> we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new
> NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
> Chris
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, see below
>> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
>> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
>> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
>> > opening page, the link
>> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
>> > is no longer right - neither is the link
>> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
>> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
>> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
>> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right
>> > as
>> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
>> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
>> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
>> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
>> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the
>> > poster
>> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions,
>> > for
>> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the
>> > poster
>> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
>> > version of the 'cooperator'.
>> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
>> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
>> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
>> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
>> will be reviewed.
>> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
>> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
>> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
>> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
>> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
>> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
>> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
>> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
>> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
>> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
>> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
>> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
>> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
>> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
>> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
>> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
>> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
>> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
>> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
>> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
>> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
>> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
>> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
>> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
>> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
>> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
>> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
>> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
>> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
>> could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
>> first?
>> Alex
>> > Chris
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
>> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
>> > Hi again Alex,
>> > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
>> > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is
>> > better
>> > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
>> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
>> > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
>> > On the Home page under 'Activities'
>> > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
>> > & join an on-line discussion
>> > I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they
>> > will
>> > find a link to the new material on our home page.
>> > Chris
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
>> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > see attached
>> > Chris
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:27:46 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris, see below
>> >> 2009/10/19 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Alex,
>> >> > see below
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:43:37 -0700
>> >> >> Subject: Re: My Neighbourhood page
>> >> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> >> This all seems to be coming together well. Just a small point on
>> >> >> http://ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm. From what I have heard it
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> basic web etiquette that only links should be
Hi Chris,
I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
added a link to instructions for setting up the gg like we did at Hope
St.
I think it is much simpler and couldeven be made better. It is not
asking people to do anythin that extra ordinary and even if they don't
follow Hope St's layout they have a pretty good place to talk.
> Hi Chris,
> I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
> complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone who
> just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
> At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
> discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
> Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
> requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
> I've set up something at:
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/hopestreet-blaxland
> To support other streets to set one up at the myneighbourhood html
> page we would simply have to show them how to sign up for a gg and
> then how to make a priority post (which is a matter of simply doing a
> post and ticking one box) and offer them the what's on template and
> the steps for organising. Beyond that anyone can come an contribute
> pretty easily and see what's going on. For now this seems the most
> straight forward.
> Alex
> 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier for the
>> average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
>> We referred to a couple of sites
>> http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about
>> anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page leading
>> people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about
>> something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet. Which
>> site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can know
>> that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the
>> journey became hard.
>> Chris
>> ________________________________
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +1100
>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> From: historicaltrek...@gmail.com
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site is a
>> mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it very
>> difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get there!
>> I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I
>> clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found myself on
>> what looked like a different site all together. This is just not working for
>> me, I don't know about anyone else.
>> I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average person
>> to negotiate.
>> Keith.
>> 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
>> Hi Alex,
>> Yes I agree with all you say below.
>> I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be
>> those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When
>> they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
>> The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
>> promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment
>> box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined -
>> but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense
>> for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
>> If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable
>> for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what
>> we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new
>> NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
>> Chris
>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> Hi Chris, see below
>>> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Alex,
>>> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
>>> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
>>> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
>>> > opening page, the link
>>> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
>>> > is no longer right - neither is the link
>>> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
>>> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
>>> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
>>> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right
>>> > as
>>> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
>>> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
>>> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
>>> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
>>> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the
>>> > poster
>>> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions,
>>> > for
>>> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the
>>> > poster
>>> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
>>> > version of the 'cooperator'.
>>> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
>>> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
>>> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
>>> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
>>> will be reviewed.
>>> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
>>> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
>>> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
>>> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
>>> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
>>> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
>>> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
>>> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
>>> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
>>> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
>>> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
>>> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
>>> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
>>> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
>>> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
>>> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
>>> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
>>> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
>>> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
>>> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
>>> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
>>> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
>>> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
>>> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
>>> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
>>> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
>>> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
>>> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
>>> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
>>> could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
>>> first?
>>> Alex
>>> > Chris
>>> > ________________________________
>>> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>>> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
>>> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
>>> > Hi again Alex,
>>> > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
>>> > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is
>>> > better
>>> > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
>>> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
>>> > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
>>> > On the Home page under 'Activities'
>>> > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
>>> > & join an on-line discussion
>>> > I have told people at the LETs conference that after the weekend they
>>> > will
>>> > find a link to the new material on our home page.
>>> > Chris
>>> > ________________________________
>>> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
>>> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> > Subject: RE: My Neighbourhood page
>>> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:10:45 +1100
Yep, I thought we might end up back at gg - it's a much less complicated platform.
Now that we have most of the development work under our belts (thanks to pbworks) it is clearer how gg can work. I also like the fact that by using gg exclusively we can encourage discussion more effectively. Referring people to pb just encouraged a top down organisation and made people forget about chatting and engaging with neighbours before then collaborating with interested others.
I'll get a chance to work on it after the weekend.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:07:21 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
> complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone who
> just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
> At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
> discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
> Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
> requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
> I've set up something at:
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/hopestreet-blaxland
> To support other streets to set one up at the myneighbourhood html
> page we would simply have to show them how to sign up for a gg and
> then how to make a priority post (which is a matter of simply doing a
> post and ticking one box) and offer them the what's on template and
> the steps for organising. Beyond that anyone can come an contribute
> pretty easily and see what's going on. For now this seems the most
> straight forward.
> Alex
> 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier for the
> > average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
> > We referred to a couple of sites
> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about
> > anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page leading
> > people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about
> > something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet. Which
> > site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can know
> > that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the
> > journey became hard.
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +1100
> > Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> > From: historicaltrek...@gmail.com
> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> > I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site is a
> > mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it very
> > difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get there!
> > I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I
> > clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found myself on
> > what looked like a different site all together. This is just not working for
> > me, I don't know about anyone else.
> > I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average person
> > to negotiate.
> > Keith.
> > 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
> > Hi Alex,
> > Yes I agree with all you say below.
> > I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be
> > those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When
> > they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
> > The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
> > promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment
> > box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined -
> > but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense
> > for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
> > If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable
> > for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what
> > we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new
> > NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
> > Chris
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, see below
> >> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
> >> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
> >> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
> >> > opening page, the link
> >> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
> >> > is no longer right - neither is the link
> >> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
> >> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
> >> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
> >> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right
> >> > as
> >> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
> >> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
> >> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
> >> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
> >> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the
> >> > poster
> >> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions,
> >> > for
> >> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the
> >> > poster
> >> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
> >> > version of the 'cooperator'.
> >> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
> >> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
> >> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
> >> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
> >> will be reviewed.
> >> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
> >> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
> >> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
> >> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
> >> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
> >> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
> >> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
> >> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
> >> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
> >> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
> >> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
> >> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
> >> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
> >> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
> >> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
> >> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
> >> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
> >> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
> >> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
> >> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
> >> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
> >> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
> >> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
> >> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
> >> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
> >> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
> >> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
> >> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
> >> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
> >> could just concentrate on developing it further so that it is usable
> >> first?
> >> Alex
> >> > Chris
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: chrisbaul...@hotmail.com
> >> > To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> > Subject: further to My Neighbourhood page
> >> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:15 +1100
> >> > Hi again Alex,
> >> > re a link from NTW home page to what we are up to.
> >> > I think what we have arrived at (although still needing more work) is
> >> > better
> >> > than where we were at with the Cooperator page at
> >> > http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm (This page encourages
> >> > an offline face to face process for meetings.)
> >> > On the Home page under 'Activities'
> >> > ...See some exciting local activities, see our activity 'Co-operator'
> >> > & join an on-line discussion
This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike the pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address). Also ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard a place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I think we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps even create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping the separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh just be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about “neighbourhood things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other instructions.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:38:03 -0700
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris,
> I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
> be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
> added a link to instructions for setting up the gg like we did at Hope
> St.
> I think it is much simpler and couldeven be made better. It is not
> asking people to do anythin that extra ordinary and even if they don't
> follow Hope St's layout they have a pretty good place to talk.
> 2009/10/29 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Chris,
> > I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
> > complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone who
> > just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
> > At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
> > discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
> > Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
> > requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
> > I've set up something at:
> > http://groups.google.com.au/group/hopestreet-blaxland
> > To support other streets to set one up at the myneighbourhood html
> > page we would simply have to show them how to sign up for a gg and
> > then how to make a priority post (which is a matter of simply doing a
> > post and ticking one box) and offer them the what's on template and
> > the steps for organising. Beyond that anyone can come an contribute
> > pretty easily and see what's going on. For now this seems the most
> > straight forward.
> > Alex
> > 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier for the
> >> average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
> >> We referred to a couple of sites
> >> http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about
> >> anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page leading
> >> people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about
> >> something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet. Which
> >> site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can know
> >> that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the
> >> journey became hard.
> >> Chris
> >> ________________________________
> >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +1100
> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> >> From: historicaltrek...@gmail.com
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site is a
> >> mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it very
> >> difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get there!
> >> I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I
> >> clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found myself on
> >> what looked like a different site all together. This is just not working for
> >> me, I don't know about anyone else.
> >> I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average person
> >> to negotiate.
> >> Keith.
> >> 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
> >> Hi Alex,
> >> Yes I agree with all you say below.
> >> I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will be
> >> those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster. When
> >> they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
> >> The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
> >> promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the comment
> >> box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty determined -
> >> but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make sense
> >> for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
> >> If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as workable
> >> for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is what
> >> we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have a new
> >> NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
> >> Chris
> >>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
> >>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> >>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >>> Hi Chris, see below
> >>> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >>> > Hi Alex,
> >>> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
> >>> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
> >>> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the NTW
> >>> > opening page, the link
> >>> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
> >>> > is no longer right - neither is the link
> >>> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
> >>> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator poster, the
> >>> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a different
> >>> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it right
> >>> > as
> >>> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send - that
> >>> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
> >>> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the difficulties of
> >>> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
> >>> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability, the
> >>> > poster
> >>> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult discussions,
> >>> > for
> >>> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding the
> >>> > poster
> >>> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a very unintegrated
> >>> > version of the 'cooperator'.
> >>> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
> >>> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
> >>> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
> >>> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
> >>> will be reviewed.
> >>> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
> >>> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
> >>> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
> >>> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
> >>> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
> >>> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
> >>> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
> >>> people to use. For people to set up a googlegroup and a pbworks space
> >>> and copy and paste our templates may be the best we can come up with
> >>> for now but having tried to do it I find it to be an extremely
> >>> unclear, clumsy and difficult process. The templates have lots of
> >>> wording problems and it isn't particularly clear that you copy and
> >>> paste them or where they belong. The organiser template is also not
> >>> accessible from the open page. People have to commit to figuring all
> >>> that out while either trusting that it is all worth doing or somehow
> >>> coming to terms with our logic. On top of all that they have to figure
> >>> out how to manage and navigate their googlegroup and pbworks spaces
> >>> which I have found to be a major effort in itself. In short I think
> >>> the process we recommend is way too complicated and wont work.
> >>> Having said that, I agree with you that as a cooperative approach an
> >>> online process is more integrated than a f2f process but to make the
> >>> f2f approach secondary at this stage while our online process is still
> >>> so inaccessible would be a mistake in my opinion. As far as I'm
> >>> concerned the online process is still very much in development which
> >>> is absolutely fine but to replace the f2f process (which seems
> >>> basically doable to me) now would be a mistake. I know the f2f stuff
> >>> is still in there somewhere but it is basically lost in the current
> >>> myneighbourhood layout. Rather than worrying too much about
> >>> integrating or publishing the online process at this stage perhaps we
> >>> could just concentrate on developing
2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike the
> pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address). Also
> ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
> point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard a
> place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I think
> we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
www.myarea.110mb.com For streets that want to list their gg by
emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
110mb address on their posters.
This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of things
Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
set up their own simpler address.
> I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps even
> create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
> This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping the
> separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
> chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh just
> be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about “neighbourhood
> things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
> instructions.
We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit) and
not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:38:03 -0700
>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris,
>> I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
>> be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
>> added a link to instructions for setting up the gg like we did at Hope
>> St.
>> I think it is much simpler and couldeven be made better. It is not
>> asking people to do anythin that extra ordinary and even if they don't
>> follow Hope St's layout they have a pretty good place to talk.
>> 2009/10/29 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Chris,
>> > I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
>> > complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone who
>> > just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
>> > At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
>> > discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
>> > Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
>> > requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
>> > I've set up something at:
>> > http://groups.google.com.au/group/hopestreet-blaxland
>> > To support other streets to set one up at the myneighbourhood html
>> > page we would simply have to show them how to sign up for a gg and
>> > then how to make a priority post (which is a matter of simply doing a
>> > post and ticking one box) and offer them the what's on template and
>> > the steps for organising. Beyond that anyone can come an contribute
>> > pretty easily and see what's going on. For now this seems the most
>> > straight forward.
>> > Alex
>> > 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier
>> >> for the
>> >> average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
>> >> We referred to a couple of sites
>> >> http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about
>> >> anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page
>> >> leading
>> >> people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about
>> >> something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet.
>> >> Which
>> >> site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can
>> >> know
>> >> that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the
>> >> journey became hard.
>> >> Chris
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +1100
>> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> >> From: historicaltrek...@gmail.com
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> I don't know who designed this site, but from a layman's view this site
>> >> is a
>> >> mess. I am just an ordinary non computer literate chap and I find it
>> >> very
>> >> difficult to understand where I am going or where I am when I get
>> >> there!
>> >> I am used to just clicking on the forum I want and it takes me there. I
>> >> clicked on something the other day on this site and suddenly found
>> >> myself on
>> >> what looked like a different site all together. This is just not
>> >> working for
>> >> me, I don't know about anyone else.
>> >> I just think this could have been made a lot easier for the average
>> >> person
>> >> to negotiate.
>> >> Keith.
>> >> 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>
>> >> Hi Alex,
>> >> Yes I agree with all you say below.
>> >> I think that the only likely visitors to NTW or to myneighbourhood will
>> >> be
>> >> those in Hope St looking for info on an activity they saw on a poster.
>> >> When
>> >> they go to the site, they will just click on the activity.
>> >> The best we can hope for at this stage is that those with activities to
>> >> promote will then try to get them listed by entering details in the
>> >> comment
>> >> box or by emailing us. Beyond that they would need to be pretty
>> >> determined -
>> >> but it is the essence of what we want to achieve and it does all make
>> >> sense
>> >> for anyone who sees any opportunity or potential at all.
>> >> If someone in another neighbourhood only sees the activity list as
>> >> workable
>> >> for now, that would be good - the rest needs work and I agree that is
>> >> what
>> >> we should focus on between now and December when we should aim to have
>> >> a new
>> >> NTW cooperator page. Lets exchange ideas to make it better.
>> >> Chris
>> >>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:41:58 -0700
>> >>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> >>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >>> Hi Chris, see below
>> >>> 2009/10/27 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> >>> > Hi Alex,
>> >>> > I am forwarding this email again so we can resolve the
>> >>> > 'cooperator'/myneighbourhood links in NTW ASAP.
>> >>> > When one goes to http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm from the
>> >>> > NTW
>> >>> > opening page, the link
>> >>> > "Use the Co-operator Forum"
>> >>> > is no longer right - neither is the link
>> >>> > "Use the Co-operator Template under construction."
>> >>> OK - I'll remove both those links
>> >>> > I think we need to combine the Cooperator poster stuff on NTW now
>> >>> > with the
>> >>> > myneighbourhood spaces
>> >>> > (http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm)
>> >>> > myneighbourhood spaces do link from within to the Cooperator
>> >>> > poster, the
>> >>> > face to face paper and the video, but if you need to have a
>> >>> > different
>> >>> > emphasis for your uni purposes we should work out a way to get it
>> >>> > right
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > it doesn't make sense now and is not the message we need to send -
>> >>> > that
>> >>> > online is the best expression of the process we have developed and
>> >>> > recommend. The poster is a way of trying to minimise the
>> >>> > difficulties of
>> >>> > using 'face to face' meetings instead of the internet for neighbours
>> >>> > to discuss 'neighbourhood things'. In the end, for its viability,
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > poster
>> >>> > still relies on continuing discussion online for difficult
>> >>> > discussions,
>> >>> > for
>> >>> > record keeping, for layout and for scheduling ... and for holding
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > poster
>> >>> > and publishing the results ... so the poster it is a
>> >>> > very unintegrated
>> >>> > version of the 'cooperator'.
>> >>> Regarding uni I do have a bit of an issue. The key elements of the
>> >>> Cooperator page as it is currently structured (the video, the poster,
>> >>> the academic paper) provides an important appendix in my thesis. This
>> >>> will be a problem till mid December (6 weeks) which is when the thesis
>> >>> will be reviewed.
>> >>> That aside, I agree an integration is needed but I don't think the
>> >>> myneighbourhood page has achieved that just yet. I think the f2f
>> >>> poster, video and the paper to support it are still far more
>> >>> accessible than the online process we recommend and are pretty well
>> >>> lost in the current myneighbourhood layout.
>> >>> While I'm happier with the orientation in the myneighbourhood page I
>> >>> still have real concerns about the technology and process it asks
I like the name 'Hope Street Talking Point' but in the text referring to Hope Street on the site could you include 'Blaxland'. An earlier visitor missed the fact that this forum related to a particular locality.
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:49:43 -0800
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris, see below
> 2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike the
> > pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address). Also
> > ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
> > point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard a
> > place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I think
> > we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
> Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
> 110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
> simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
> www.myarea.110mb.com
This sounds like the best idea - could you do this when you get a chance?
For streets that want to list their gg by
> emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
> here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
> 110mb address on their posters.
I agree, we should incorporate this on www.myarea.110mb.com and promote it there as a feature. In this way we will bring things back to NTW which is the fundamental purpose we should keep in mind, right?
> This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of things
> Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
> set up their own simpler address.
This would add a complication, but more fundamentally it would also mean that the linkage back to NTW would be lost when a new address was used. I don't think we should encourage or facillitate setting up a new address. People may well want to set up a new address but there are advantages which I think we should sell for neighbourhoods to have a central listing and a ready made address they can advertise.
More generally, 'advertising' is not yet covered in the process. For 'outsiders' (and even for an understanding by Hope St 'insiders') we will need to explain how to get traffic to the address - posters, library/lmnc computer shortcuts, encouragement of existing event organisers, community builders, ???
> > I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps even
> > create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
> > This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping the
> > separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
> > chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh just
> > be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about “neighbourhood
> > things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
> > instructions.
My eye is still drawn away from the message about the importance of chat and collaboration.
The importance of chatting first (engaging with others) before organising is not clear. I'm not saying that the old draft was good enough, but it did actively encourage this point, and even backed it up with an academic argument.
This is back to the problem of 'hierarchy' again - this current draft is neutral on this problem. Since we live in a hierarchical culture we can be sure that in the absense of anything to the contrary, the whole process will be used by most to establish and support hierarchy. This is the 'default' and I am convinced that unless we comment on this we will just be setting up a process that undermines our own 'global' solution in which cooperative process is critical and hierarchical process is the antithesis.
(Calling the site 'Hope Street Talking Point' is good, but it probably only has the meaning we want if the importance of chatting is understood.)
re 2nd link page
This problem is exacerbated when you click on 'Share & Develop an Activity' - perhaps it could say 'Share in Developing an Activity'.
When you click it says THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED SO YOU HELP MAKE ONLINE ACTIVITY ORGANISING MORE PRODUCTIVE.
JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW.
What about -
THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED to HELP neighbours organise an activity together online.
JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW to start developing the activity together.
> We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
> hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
> the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit)
Definately.
On this point I think have several problems.
Originally, when the draft was calendar based, expired events were automatically deleted - now they will just build up unless the space is monitored.
People need to be able to easily find the event they are interested in - in the old draft there was an alphabetical list. This not only allowed them to quickly find what they wanted, but also to quickly glimpse what else was on - thus it encouraged cross pollination. It would be good if we could achieve something simple again.
and
> not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
> neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
> hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
Not sure I understand your point here - do you mean the Cooperator (being the f2f poster process), or the process which the current link 'Share & Develop an Activity' provides?
I think that the innovation in the f2f poster was that it headed off hierarchy/ 'power over' etc and that it empowered everyone. I am very concerned to be sure that this online process does the same - it certainly has inherent advantages to achieving this result (it gives a forum where theoretically all are equal and everyone has equal time), but if our online process is seen as setting up a default hierarchy, our innovation and our positive contribution is diminished.
I think our chance to keep the innovation of the Cooperator front and centre is to ensure that attention is drawn to its innovative features in the online process where those features are upheld.
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:38:03 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris,
> >> I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
> >> be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
> >> added a link to instructions for setting up the gg like we did at Hope
> >> St.
> >> I think it is much simpler and couldeven be made better. It is not
> >> asking people to do anythin that extra ordinary and even if they don't
> >> follow Hope St's layout they have a pretty good place to talk.
> >> 2009/10/29 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Chris,
> >> > I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
> >> > complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone who
> >> > just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
> >> > At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
> >> > discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
> >> > Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
> >> > requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
> >> > I've set up something at:
> >> > http://groups.google.com.au/group/hopestreet-blaxland
> >> > To support other streets to set one up at the myneighbourhood html
> >> > page we would simply have to show them how to sign up for a gg and
> >> > then how to make a priority post (which is a matter of simply doing a
> >> > post and ticking one box) and offer them the what's on template and
> >> > the steps for organising. Beyond that anyone can come an contribute
> >> > pretty easily and see what's going on. For now this seems the most
> >> > straight forward.
> >> > Alex
> >> > 2009/10/29 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >> Hi Keith - if you have any specific suggestions for making it easier
> >> >> for the
> >> >> average person to negotiate they would be appreciated.
> >> >> We referred to a couple of sites
> >> >> http://www.ntw.110mb.com/co-operator.htm - leading people to chat about
> >> >> anything, and http://www.ntw.110mb.com/myneighbourhood.htm - a page
> >> >> leading
> >> >> people to see 'what's on' or to 'co-operative organisation' about
> >> >> something. A lot depends on the reason why you visited the internet.
> >> >> Which
> >> >> site did you start at and for what purpose had you gone there? If I can
> >> >> know
> >> >> that I might have a chance to walk in your shoes and find out where the
> >> >> journey became hard.
2009/11/2 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Alex,
> I like the name 'Hope Street Talking Point' but in the text referring to
> Hope Street on the site could you include 'Blaxland'. An earlier visitor
> missed the fact that this forum related to a particular locality.
>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:49:43 -0800
>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> Hi Chris, see below
>> 2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> > Hi Alex,
>> > This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike
>> > the
>> > pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address).
>> > Also
>> > ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
>> > point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard
>> > a
>> > place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I
>> > think
>> > we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
>> Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
>> 110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
>> simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
>> www.myarea.110mb.com
> This sounds like the best idea - could you do this when you get a chance?
Unfortunately www.myarea.110mb.com is taken. myneighbourhood is
available but it is hard to spell and Americans spell it differently
(and so do a lot of Aussies) What about my-area. This is available and
I have registered it in case we want it.
> For streets that want to list their gg by
>> emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
>> here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
>> 110mb address on their posters.
> I agree, we should incorporate this on www.myarea.110mb.com and promote it
> there as a feature. In this way we will bring things back to NTW which
> is the fundamental purpose we should keep in mind, right?
OK - We already offer the opportunity to email us with heir contact so
we can list them on our site.
>> This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of
>> things
>> Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
>> set up their own simpler address.
> This would add a complication, but more fundamentally it would also mean
> that the linkage back to NTW would be lost when a new address was used. I
> don't think we should encourage or facillitate setting up a new address.
> People may well want to set up a new address but there are advantages which
> I think we should sell for neighbourhoods to have a central listing and a
> ready made address they can advertise.
OK
> More generally, 'advertising' is not yet covered in the process. For
> 'outsiders' (and even for an understanding by Hope St 'insiders') we will
> need to explain how to get traffic to the address - posters, library/lmnc
> computer shortcuts, encouragement of existing event organisers, community
> builders, ???
Yes. We could offer a template for a poster that could be put in their
neighbourhood. I'll add something to the draft at
www.my-area.110mb.com to kick this off.
>> > I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps
>> > even
>> > create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
>> > This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping
>> > the
>> > separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
>> > chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh
>> > just
>> > be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about
>> > “neighbourhood
>> > things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
>> > instructions.
> My eye is still drawn away from the message about the importance of chat and
> collaboration.
> The importance of chatting first (engaging with others) before organising is
> not clear. I'm not saying that the old draft was good enough, but it did
> actively encourage this point, and even backed it up with an academic
> argument.
> This is back to the problem of 'hierarchy' again - this current draft is
> neutral on this problem. Since we live in a hierarchical culture we can be
> sure that in the absense of anything to the contrary, the whole process will
> be used by most to establish and support hierarchy. This is the 'default'
> and I am convinced that unless we comment on this we will just be setting up
> a process that undermines our own 'global' solution in which cooperative
> process is critical and hierarchical process is the antithesis.
> (Calling the site 'Hope Street Talking Point' is good, but it probably only
> has the meaning we want if the importance of chatting is understood.)
I'm open to suggestions but we must keep in mind that people will be
looking for the what's on link first up and we shouldn't get in the
way of that too much and we don't want to distract too much from the
Co-operator link either. Also we have to keep the page looking simple
and uncluttered.
> re 2nd link page
> This problem is exacerbated when you click on 'Share & Develop an Activity'
> - perhaps it could say 'Share in Developing an Activity'.
OK - done.
> When you click it says THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED SO YOU HELP
> MAKE ONLINE ACTIVITY ORGANISING MORE PRODUCTIVE.
> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW.
> What about -
> THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED to HELP neighbours organise an
> activity together online.
> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW to
> start developing the activity together.
OK - done
>> We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
>> hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
>> the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit)
> Definately.
> On this point I think have several problems.
> Originally, when the draft was calendar based, expired events were
> automatically deleted - now they will just build up unless the space is
> monitored.
There is a calendar option but like the last calendar you were using
it would require us to transfer the info we are sent to the calendar
> People need to be able to easily find the event they are interested in - in
> the old draft there was an alphabetical list. This not only allowed them to
> quickly find what they wanted, but also to quickly glimpse what else was on
> - thus it encouraged cross pollination. It would be good if we could achieve
> something simple again.
Allowing people to just post in their activity is pretty good and it
would not be too hard to see what was on or for us to delete expired
activities or to transfer stuff to a calendar link that was available
to people in the first message.
> and
>> not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
>> neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
>> hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
> Not sure I understand your point here - do you mean the Cooperator (being
> the f2f poster process), or the process which the current link 'Share &
> Develop an Activity' provides?
I'm referring to the online process from the third link
> I think that the innovation in the f2f poster was that it headed off
> hierarchy/ 'power over' etc and that it empowered everyone. I am very
> concerned to be sure that this online process does the same - it certainly
> has inherent advantages to achieving this result (it gives a forum where
> theoretically all are equal and everyone has equal time), but if our online
> process is seen as setting up a default hierarchy, our innovation and our
> positive contribution is diminished.
> I think our chance to keep the innovation of the Cooperator front and centre
> is to ensure that attention is drawn to its innovative features in the
> online process where those features are upheld.
>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>> >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:38:03 -0700
>> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>> >> Hi Chris,
>> >> I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
>> >> be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
>> >> added a link to instructions for setting up the gg like we did at Hope
>> >> St.
>> >> I think it is much simpler and couldeven be made better. It is not
>> >> asking people to do anythin that extra ordinary and even if they don't
>> >> follow Hope St's layout they have a pretty good place to talk.
>> >> 2009/10/29 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Chris,
>> >> > I think that using both pbworks and googlegroups is simply too
>> >> > complicated both for anyone setting up this process and for anyone
>> >> > who
>> >> > just wants to use it. I think we should try and just use one of them.
>> >> > At first I thought this should just be pbworks but it doesn't manage
>> >> > discussions well and the interface is even more convoluted than ggs.
>> >> > Between the two I think gg provides the best structure because it
>> >> > requires the least amount of skills to navigate and participate in.
>> >> > I've
> 2009/11/2 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>> Hi Alex,
>> I like the name 'Hope Street Talking Point' but in the text referring to
>> Hope Street on the site could you include 'Blaxland'. An earlier visitor
>> missed the fact that this forum related to a particular locality.
> OK - done.
>> See more below
>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:49:43 -0800
>>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> Hi Chris, see below
>>> 2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Alex,
>>> > This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike
>>> > the
>>> > pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address).
>>> > Also
>>> > ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
>>> > point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard
>>> > a
>>> > place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I
>>> > think
>>> > we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
>>> Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
>>> 110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
>>> simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
>>> www.myarea.110mb.com
>> This sounds like the best idea - could you do this when you get a chance?
> Unfortunately www.myarea.110mb.com is taken. myneighbourhood is
> available but it is hard to spell and Americans spell it differently
> (and so do a lot of Aussies) What about my-area. This is available and
> I have registered it in case we want it.
>> For streets that want to list their gg by
>>> emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
>>> here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
>>> 110mb address on their posters.
>> I agree, we should incorporate this on www.myarea.110mb.com and promote it
>> there as a feature. In this way we will bring things back to NTW which
>> is the fundamental purpose we should keep in mind, right?
> OK - We already offer the opportunity to email us with heir contact so
> we can list them on our site.
>>> This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of
>>> things
>>> Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
>>> set up their own simpler address.
>> This would add a complication, but more fundamentally it would also mean
>> that the linkage back to NTW would be lost when a new address was used. I
>> don't think we should encourage or facillitate setting up a new address.
>> People may well want to set up a new address but there are advantages which
>> I think we should sell for neighbourhoods to have a central listing and a
>> ready made address they can advertise.
> OK
>> More generally, 'advertising' is not yet covered in the process. For
>> 'outsiders' (and even for an understanding by Hope St 'insiders') we will
>> need to explain how to get traffic to the address - posters, library/lmnc
>> computer shortcuts, encouragement of existing event organisers, community
>> builders, ???
> Yes. We could offer a template for a poster that could be put in their
> neighbourhood. I'll add something to the draft at
> www.my-area.110mb.com to kick this off.
>>> > I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps
>>> > even
>>> > create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
>>> > This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping
>>> > the
>>> > separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
>>> > chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh
>>> > just
>>> > be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about
>>> > “neighbourhood
>>> > things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
>>> > instructions.
>> My eye is still drawn away from the message about the importance of chat and
>> collaboration.
>> The importance of chatting first (engaging with others) before organising is
>> not clear. I'm not saying that the old draft was good enough, but it did
>> actively encourage this point, and even backed it up with an academic
>> argument.
>> This is back to the problem of 'hierarchy' again - this current draft is
>> neutral on this problem. Since we live in a hierarchical culture we can be
>> sure that in the absense of anything to the contrary, the whole process will
>> be used by most to establish and support hierarchy. This is the 'default'
>> and I am convinced that unless we comment on this we will just be setting up
>> a process that undermines our own 'global' solution in which cooperative
>> process is critical and hierarchical process is the antithesis.
>> (Calling the site 'Hope Street Talking Point' is good, but it probably only
>> has the meaning we want if the importance of chatting is understood.)
> I'm open to suggestions but we must keep in mind that people will be
> looking for the what's on link first up and we shouldn't get in the
> way of that too much and we don't want to distract too much from the
> Co-operator link either. Also we have to keep the page looking simple
> and uncluttered.
>> re 2nd link page
>> This problem is exacerbated when you click on 'Share & Develop an Activity'
>> - perhaps it could say 'Share in Developing an Activity'.
> OK - done.
>> When you click it says THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED SO YOU HELP
>> MAKE ONLINE ACTIVITY ORGANISING MORE PRODUCTIVE.
>> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW.
>> What about -
>> THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED to HELP neighbours organise an
>> activity together online.
>> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW to
>> start developing the activity together.
> OK - done
>>> We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
>>> hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
>>> the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit)
>> Definately.
>> On this point I think have several problems.
>> Originally, when the draft was calendar based, expired events were
>> automatically deleted - now they will just build up unless the space is
>> monitored.
> There is a calendar option but like the last calendar you were using
> it would require us to transfer the info we are sent to the calendar
>> People need to be able to easily find the event they are interested in - in
>> the old draft there was an alphabetical list. This not only allowed them to
>> quickly find what they wanted, but also to quickly glimpse what else was on
>> - thus it encouraged cross pollination. It would be good if we could achieve
>> something simple again.
> Allowing people to just post in their activity is pretty good and it
> would not be too hard to see what was on or for us to delete expired
> activities or to transfer stuff to a calendar link that was available
> to people in the first message.
>> and
>>> not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
>>> neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
>>> hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
>> Not sure I understand your point here - do you mean the Cooperator (being
>> the f2f poster process), or the process which the current link 'Share &
>> Develop an Activity' provides?
> I'm referring to the online process from the third link
>> I think that the innovation in the f2f poster was that it headed off
>> hierarchy/ 'power over' etc and that it empowered everyone. I am very
>> concerned to be sure that this online process does the same - it certainly
>> has inherent advantages to achieving this result (it gives a forum where
>> theoretically all are equal and everyone has equal time), but if our online
>> process is seen as setting up a default hierarchy, our innovation and our
>> positive contribution is diminished.
>> I think our chance to keep the innovation of the Cooperator front and centre
>> is to ensure that attention is drawn to its innovative features in the
>> online process where those features are upheld.
> OK
> Alex
>> Chris
>>> Alex
>>> > Chris
>>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>> >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:38:03 -0700
>>> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>> >> Hi Chris,
>>> >> I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
>>> >> be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
>>> >> added a link to instructions for setting up the gg like we did at Hope
>>> >> St.
>>> >> I think it is much simpler and couldeven be made better. It is not
>>> >> asking people to do anythin that extra ordinary and even if they don't
>>> >> follow Hope St's layout they have a pretty good place to talk.
> 2009/11/2 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Chris see below
>> alex
>> 2009/11/2 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>> Hi Alex,
>>> I like the name 'Hope Street Talking Point' but in the text referring to
>>> Hope Street on the site could you include 'Blaxland'. An earlier visitor
>>> missed the fact that this forum related to a particular locality.
>> OK - done.
>>> See more below
>>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:49:43 -0800
>>>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>>> Hi Chris, see below
>>>> 2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
>>>> > Hi Alex,
>>>> > This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike
>>>> > the
>>>> > pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address).
>>>> > Also
>>>> > ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
>>>> > point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard
>>>> > a
>>>> > place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I
>>>> > think
>>>> > we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
>>>> Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
>>>> 110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
>>>> simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
>>>> www.myarea.110mb.com
>>> This sounds like the best idea - could you do this when you get a chance?
>> Unfortunately www.myarea.110mb.com is taken. myneighbourhood is
>> available but it is hard to spell and Americans spell it differently
>> (and so do a lot of Aussies) What about my-area. This is available and
>> I have registered it in case we want it.
>>> For streets that want to list their gg by
>>>> emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
>>>> here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
>>>> 110mb address on their posters.
>>> I agree, we should incorporate this on www.myarea.110mb.com and promote it
>>> there as a feature. In this way we will bring things back to NTW which
>>> is the fundamental purpose we should keep in mind, right?
>> OK - We already offer the opportunity to email us with heir contact so
>> we can list them on our site.
>>>> This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of
>>>> things
>>>> Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
>>>> set up their own simpler address.
>>> This would add a complication, but more fundamentally it would also mean
>>> that the linkage back to NTW would be lost when a new address was used. I
>>> don't think we should encourage or facillitate setting up a new address.
>>> People may well want to set up a new address but there are advantages which
>>> I think we should sell for neighbourhoods to have a central listing and a
>>> ready made address they can advertise.
>> OK
>>> More generally, 'advertising' is not yet covered in the process. For
>>> 'outsiders' (and even for an understanding by Hope St 'insiders') we will
>>> need to explain how to get traffic to the address - posters, library/lmnc
>>> computer shortcuts, encouragement of existing event organisers, community
>>> builders, ???
>> Yes. We could offer a template for a poster that could be put in their
>> neighbourhood. I'll add something to the draft at
>> www.my-area.110mb.com to kick this off.
>>>> > I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps
>>>> > even
>>>> > create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
>>>> > This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping
>>>> > the
>>>> > separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
>>>> > chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh
>>>> > just
>>>> > be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about
>>>> > “neighbourhood
>>>> > things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
>>>> > instructions.
>>> My eye is still drawn away from the message about the importance of chat and
>>> collaboration.
>>> The importance of chatting first (engaging with others) before organising is
>>> not clear. I'm not saying that the old draft was good enough, but it did
>>> actively encourage this point, and even backed it up with an academic
>>> argument.
>>> This is back to the problem of 'hierarchy' again - this current draft is
>>> neutral on this problem. Since we live in a hierarchical culture we can be
>>> sure that in the absense of anything to the contrary, the whole process will
>>> be used by most to establish and support hierarchy. This is the 'default'
>>> and I am convinced that unless we comment on this we will just be setting up
>>> a process that undermines our own 'global' solution in which cooperative
>>> process is critical and hierarchical process is the antithesis.
>>> (Calling the site 'Hope Street Talking Point' is good, but it probably only
>>> has the meaning we want if the importance of chatting is understood.)
>> I'm open to suggestions but we must keep in mind that people will be
>> looking for the what's on link first up and we shouldn't get in the
>> way of that too much and we don't want to distract too much from the
>> Co-operator link either. Also we have to keep the page looking simple
>> and uncluttered.
>>> re 2nd link page
>>> This problem is exacerbated when you click on 'Share & Develop an Activity'
>>> - perhaps it could say 'Share in Developing an Activity'.
>> OK - done.
>>> When you click it says THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED SO YOU HELP
>>> MAKE ONLINE ACTIVITY ORGANISING MORE PRODUCTIVE.
>>> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW.
>>> What about -
>>> THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED to HELP neighbours organise an
>>> activity together online.
>>> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW to
>>> start developing the activity together.
>> OK - done
>>>> We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
>>>> hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
>>>> the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit)
>>> Definately.
>>> On this point I think have several problems.
>>> Originally, when the draft was calendar based, expired events were
>>> automatically deleted - now they will just build up unless the space is
>>> monitored.
>> There is a calendar option but like the last calendar you were using
>> it would require us to transfer the info we are sent to the calendar
>>> People need to be able to easily find the event they are interested in - in
>>> the old draft there was an alphabetical list. This not only allowed them to
>>> quickly find what they wanted, but also to quickly glimpse what else was on
>>> - thus it encouraged cross pollination. It would be good if we could achieve
>>> something simple again.
>> Allowing people to just post in their activity is pretty good and it
>> would not be too hard to see what was on or for us to delete expired
>> activities or to transfer stuff to a calendar link that was available
>> to people in the first message.
>>> and
>>>> not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
>>>> neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
>>>> hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
>>> Not sure I understand your point here - do you mean the Cooperator (being
>>> the f2f poster process), or the process which the current link 'Share &
>>> Develop an Activity' provides?
>> I'm referring to the online process from the third link
>>> I think that the innovation in the f2f poster was that it headed off
>>> hierarchy/ 'power over' etc and that it empowered everyone. I am very
>>> concerned to be sure that this online process does the same - it certainly
>>> has inherent advantages to achieving this result (it gives a forum where
>>> theoretically all are equal and everyone has equal time), but if our online
>>> process is seen as setting up a default hierarchy, our innovation and our
>>> positive contribution is diminished.
>>> I think our chance to keep the innovation of the Cooperator front and centre
>>> is to ensure that attention is drawn to its innovative features in the
>>> online process where those features are upheld.
>> OK
>> Alex
>>> Chris
>>>> Alex
>>>> > Chris
>>>> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
>>>> >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:38:03 -0700
>>>> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
>>>> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
>>>> >> Hi Chris,
>>>> >> I've also set up a mock myneighbourhood page to show how the gg could
>>>> >> be made available to others beyond Hope st. It's still rough but I've
> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:19:23 -0800
> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> Hi Chris see below
> alex
> 2009/11/2 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Alex,
> > I like the name 'Hope Street Talking Point' but in the text referring to
> > Hope Street on the site could you include 'Blaxland'. An earlier visitor
> > missed the fact that this forum related to a particular locality.
> OK - done.
> > See more below
> >> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:49:43 -0800
> >> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> >> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >> Hi Chris, see below
> >> 2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> > This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike
> >> > the
> >> > pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address).
> >> > Also
> >> > ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
> >> > point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard
> >> > a
> >> > place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I
> >> > think
> >> > we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
> >> Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
> >> 110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
> >> simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
> >> www.myarea.110mb.com
> > This sounds like the best idea - could you do this when you get a chance?
> Unfortunately www.myarea.110mb.com is taken. myneighbourhood is
> available but it is hard to spell and Americans spell it differently
> (and so do a lot of Aussies) What about my-area. This is available and
> I have registered it in case we want it.
OK
> > For streets that want to list their gg by
> >> emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
> >> here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
> >> 110mb address on their posters.
> > I agree, we should incorporate this on www.myarea.110mb.com and promote it
> > there as a feature. In this way we will bring things back to NTW which
> > is the fundamental purpose we should keep in mind, right?
> OK - We already offer the opportunity to email us with heir contact so
> we can list them on our site.
> >> This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of
> >> things
> >> Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
> >> set up their own simpler address.
> > This would add a complication, but more fundamentally it would also mean
> > that the linkage back to NTW would be lost when a new address was used. I
> > don't think we should encourage or facillitate setting up a new address.
> > People may well want to set up a new address but there are advantages which
> > I think we should sell for neighbourhoods to have a central listing and a
> > ready made address they can advertise.
> OK
> > More generally, 'advertising' is not yet covered in the process. For
> > 'outsiders' (and even for an understanding by Hope St 'insiders') we will
> > need to explain how to get traffic to the address - posters, library/lmnc
> > computer shortcuts, encouragement of existing event organisers, community
> > builders, ???
> Yes. We could offer a template for a poster that could be put in their
> neighbourhood. I'll add something to the draft at
> www.my-area.110mb.com to kick this off.
> >> > I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps
> >> > even
> >> > create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
> >> > This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping
> >> > the
> >> > separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
> >> > chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh
> >> > just
> >> > be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about
> >> > “neighbourhood
> >> > things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
> >> > instructions.
> > My eye is still drawn away from the message about the importance of chat and
> > collaboration.
> > The importance of chatting first (engaging with others) before organising is
> > not clear. I'm not saying that the old draft was good enough, but it did
> > actively encourage this point, and even backed it up with an academic
> > argument.
> > This is back to the problem of 'hierarchy' again - this current draft is
> > neutral on this problem. Since we live in a hierarchical culture we can be
> > sure that in the absense of anything to the contrary, the whole process will
> > be used by most to establish and support hierarchy. This is the 'default'
> > and I am convinced that unless we comment on this we will just be setting up
> > a process that undermines our own 'global' solution in which cooperative
> > process is critical and hierarchical process is the antithesis.
> > (Calling the site 'Hope Street Talking Point' is good, but it probably only
> > has the meaning we want if the importance of chatting is understood.)
> I'm open to suggestions but we must keep in mind that people will be
> looking for the what's on link first up and we shouldn't get in the
> way of that too much and we don't want to distract too much from the
> Co-operator link either. Also we have to keep the page looking simple
> and uncluttered.
I haven't given up on doing something on the opening page, but it's hard to see what to do there that would be sufficient without making it look wordy. Let's just recognise the deficiency but sleep on it for a while.
> > This problem is exacerbated when you click on 'Share & Develop an Activity'
> > - perhaps it could say 'Share in Developing an Activity'.
> OK - done.
> > When you click it says THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED SO YOU HELP
> > MAKE ONLINE ACTIVITY ORGANISING MORE PRODUCTIVE.
> > JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW.
> > What about -
> > THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED to HELP neighbours organise an
> > activity together online.
> > JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW to
> > start developing the activity together.
> OK - done
> >> We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
> >> hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
> >> the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit)
> > Definately.
> > On this point I think have several problems.
> > Originally, when the draft was calendar based, expired events were
> > automatically deleted - now they will just build up unless the space is
> > monitored.
> There is a calendar option but like the last calendar you were using
> it would require us to transfer the info we are sent to the calendar
> > People need to be able to easily find the event they are interested in - in
> > the old draft there was an alphabetical list. This not only allowed them to
> > quickly find what they wanted, but also to quickly glimpse what else was on
> > - thus it encouraged cross pollination. It would be good if we could achieve
> > something simple again.
> Allowing people to just post in their activity is pretty good and it
> would not be too hard to see what was on or for us to delete expired
> activities or to transfer stuff to a calendar link that was available
> to people in the first message.
OK - I can't see any option to that but is seems to me to be a weakness that we probably could only overcome with purpose built software.
Could you look at the 'embed' tool to see if the full calendar address can be replaced by making the wording active ...
See calendar of activities by clicking here
> > and
> >> not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
> >> neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
> >> hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
> > Not sure I understand your point here - do you mean the Cooperator (being
> > the f2f poster process), or the process which the current link 'Share &
> > Develop an Activity' provides?
> I'm referring to the online process from the third link
There are 2 links aren't there? Can you send me the address so I am clear?
> > I think that the innovation in the f2f poster was that it headed off
> > hierarchy/ 'power over' etc and that it empowered everyone. I am very
> > concerned to be sure that this online process does the same - it certainly
> > has inherent advantages to achieving this result (it gives a forum where
> > theoretically all are equal and everyone has equal time), but if our online
> > process is seen as setting up a default hierarchy, our innovation and our
> > positive contribution is diminished.
> > I think our chance to keep the innovation of the Cooperator front and centre
> > is to ensure that attention is drawn to its innovative features in the
> > online process where those features are upheld.
> OK
Again - I think I need to sleep on this - do you have any ideas? The wording changes in the Steps of the process to encourage cooperation help but I suspect more will be needed.
> > 2009/11/2 Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>:
> >> Hi Chris see below
> >> alex
> >> 2009/11/2 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>> I like the name 'Hope Street Talking Point' but in the text referring to
> >>> Hope Street on the site could you include 'Blaxland'. An earlier visitor
> >>> missed the fact that this forum related to a particular locality.
> >> OK - done.
> >>> See more below
> >>>> From: akme.baum...@gmail.com
> >>>> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:49:43 -0800
> >>>> Subject: Re: The Cooperator
> >>>> To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Hi Chris, see below
> >>>> 2009/10/30 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> >>>> > Hi Alex,
> >>>> > This raises the other problem again about advertising an address. Unlike
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > pb address, both addresses are complicated (especially the gg address).
> >>>> > Also
> >>>> > ideally we would advertise just one simple address and have one starting
> >>>> > point for all - however I suspect that one address might prove too hard
> >>>> > a
> >>>> > place to give simple instructions to different audiences. All in all I
> >>>> > think
> >>>> > we are back on the right track again with Googlegroups.
> >>>> Yes the gg address isn't very friendly. We could set up a more simple
> >>>> 110mb address to use such as www.myneighbourhood.110mb.com or even
> >>>> simpler (because neighbourhood is a hard word to spell,
> >>>> www.myarea.110mb.com
> >>> This sounds like the best idea - could you do this when you get a chance?
> >> Unfortunately www.myarea.110mb.com is taken. myneighbourhood is
> >> available but it is hard to spell and Americans spell it differently
> >> (and so do a lot of Aussies) What about my-area. This is available and
> >> I have registered it in case we want it.
> >>> For streets that want to list their gg by
> >>>> emailing us their link we could alphabetically list their street/area
> >>>> here that links to their gg. This would mean that they could use the
> >>>> 110mb address on their posters.
> >>> I agree, we should incorporate this on www.myarea.110mb.com and promote it
> >>> there as a feature. In this way we will bring things back to NTW which
> >>> is the fundamental purpose we should keep in mind, right?
> >> OK - We already offer the opportunity to email us with heir contact so
> >> we can list them on our site.
> >>>> This would be pretty easy for us to do and would help NTW stay aware of
> >>>> things
> >>>> Alternatively or perhaps additionally we could direct them to 110mb to
> >>>> set up their own simpler address.
> >>> This would add a complication, but more fundamentally it would also mean
> >>> that the linkage back to NTW would be lost when a new address was used. I
> >>> don't think we should encourage or facillitate setting up a new address.
> >>> People may well want to set up a new address but there are advantages which
> >>> I think we should sell for neighbourhoods to have a central listing and a
> >>> ready made address they can advertise.
> >> OK
> >>> More generally, 'advertising' is not yet covered in the process. For
> >>> 'outsiders' (and even for an understanding by Hope St 'insiders') we will
> >>> need to explain how to get traffic to the address - posters, library/lmnc
> >>> computer shortcuts, encouragement of existing event organisers, community
> >>> builders, ???
> >> Yes. We could offer a template for a poster that could be put in their
> >> neighbourhood. I'll add something to the draft at
> >> www.my-area.110mb.com to kick this off.
> >>>> > I think we might need to emphasise the 'chat' opportunity - ?perhaps
> >>>> > even
> >>>> > create a specific link to make a stronger chat space?
> >>>> > This is one thing that is in danger of getting somewhat lost in dumping
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > separation between gg and pb. With both going, gg was clearly a place to
> >>>> > chat about anything - pb was clearly a place for work. Fixing this migh
> >>>> > just
> >>>> > be a matter of giving greater visual emphasis to Chat about
> >>>> > “neighbourhood
> >>>> > things” (press 'new post', sign up and go for it) than to the other
> >>>> > instructions.
> >>> My eye is still drawn away from the message about the importance of chat and
> >>> collaboration.
> >>> The importance of chatting first (engaging with others) before organising is
> >>> not clear. I'm not saying that the old draft was good enough, but it did
> >>> actively encourage this point, and even backed it up with an academic
> >>> argument.
> >>> This is back to the problem of 'hierarchy' again - this current draft is
> >>> neutral on this problem. Since we live in a hierarchical culture we can be
> >>> sure that in the absense of anything to the contrary, the whole process will
> >>> be used by most to establish and support hierarchy. This is the 'default'
> >>> and I am convinced that unless we comment on this we will just be setting up
> >>> a process that undermines our own 'global' solution in which cooperative
> >>> process is critical and hierarchical process is the antithesis.
> >>> (Calling the site 'Hope Street Talking Point' is good, but it probably only
> >>> has the meaning we want if the importance of chatting is understood.)
> >> I'm open to suggestions but we must keep in mind that people will be
> >> looking for the what's on link first up and we shouldn't get in the
> >> way of that too much and we don't want to distract too much from the
> >> Co-operator link either. Also we have to keep the page looking simple
> >> and uncluttered.
> >>> re 2nd link page
> >>> This problem is exacerbated when you click on 'Share & Develop an Activity'
> >>> - perhaps it could say 'Share in Developing an Activity'.
> >> OK - done.
> >>> When you click it says THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED SO YOU HELP
> >>> MAKE ONLINE ACTIVITY ORGANISING MORE PRODUCTIVE.
> >>> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW.
> >>> What about -
> >>> THE HEADINGS AND TIPS BELOW ARE DESIGNED to HELP neighbours organise an
> >>> activity together online.
> >>> JUST HIT REPLY TO THIS FIRST MESSAGE AND FILL OUT THE STEPS BELOW to
> >>> start developing the activity together.
> >> OK - done
> >>>> We have to be careful not to not distract them too much from the main
> >>>> hook which was that they have come to get details about an event from
> >>>> the poster (wouldn't want to frustrate them on their first visit)
> >>> Definately.
> >>> On this point I think have several problems.
> >>> Originally, when the draft was calendar based, expired events were
> >>> automatically deleted - now they will just build up unless the space is
> >>> monitored.
> >> There is a calendar option but like the last calendar you were using
> >> it would require us to transfer the info we are sent to the calendar
> >>> People need to be able to easily find the event they are interested in - in
> >>> the old draft there was an alphabetical list. This not only allowed them to
> >>> quickly find what they wanted, but also to quickly glimpse what else was on
> >>> - thus it encouraged cross pollination. It would be good if we could achieve
> >>> something simple again.
> >> Allowing people to just post in their activity is pretty good and it
> >> would not be too hard to see what was on or for us to delete expired
> >> activities or to transfer stuff to a calendar link that was available
> >> to people in the first message.
> >>> and
> >>>> not to distract too much from the Co-operator which, like a
> >>>> neighbourhood chat space, is a vital innovation that is likely to be
> >>>> hard to encourage and easy for people to ignore.
> >>> Not sure I understand your point here - do you mean the Cooperator (being
> >>> the f2f poster process), or the process which the current link 'Share &
> >>> Develop an Activity' provides?
> >> I'm referring to the online process from the third link
> >>> I think that the innovation in the f2f poster was that it headed off
> >>> hierarchy/ 'power over' etc and that it empowered everyone. I am very
> >>> concerned to be sure that this online process does the same - it certainly
> >>> has inherent advantages to achieving this result (it gives a forum where
> >>> theoretically all are equal and everyone has equal time), but if our online
> >>> process is seen as setting up a default hierarchy, our
|
