On Aug 14, 2012, at 15:30 , Ben Shum wrote: > Official content or otherwise, I'm wary about the idea of having assigned > tasks/pages made responsible by specific individuals. I'd prefer to keep > things more flexible and overall responsibility shared by collaborative teams > working together on the same content. For my own participation in website > matters, my operating mode has always been that I was a volunteer working > with other members of the community. If I were to disappear tomorrow, the > Evergreen website would continue to function and others in the community > could step in to continue the work as the content is all free and open access.
I'm failing to imagine how having designated persons responsible for given areas of content conflicts with any of that. Volunteer or not, we already have people who are de-facto responsible for particular areas of community volunteer work (http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=website_administration). Content ownership would just formalize those responsibilities for the website content on a more granular basis. If we have areas that are not getting the attention they need, it would quickly become apparent. That said, is "content owner" a confusing term? Perhaps we could call it "content manager" or "primary content manager" or "designated content manager"? Opinions, suggestions? I will bring up this topic at our web team meeting tomorrow. > My main concerns with individuals being marked responsible for specific page > content is that we move towards a system where I guess the only way to find out is to try it. If these or other issues come up, we can discuss how to address them if/when that time comes and they become a reality. At this point they are not. I am proposing a solution to present problems we already have, i.e., a ton of content spread over multiple domains, much of it outdated and not managed. > > 1) Assigned people could disappear due to other obligations or burn out, > leaving pages we have to constantly reassign to others. This situation is actually a perfectly good use for having "content owners" (or whatever term we end up with). Knowing what areas a person is/was responsible for would allow to quickly put a call for other volunteers to step in and cover those areas. Ideally, of course, under such conditions the responsible person would communicate with web team or other "content owners" to transfer responsibility, rather than quietly abandon the duties. The process of assigning "content owners" could also help us identify orphaned content as we work on the prototype and a new site. > 2) We potentially discourage participation from new people who feel that > things are already "covered" by the assigned persons. I think the opposite is true. Knowing who (or what team) is responsible for particular content or feature makes it easier to get involved, because you know whom to talk to with your idea. In addition, having a defined process for content management, feature review, new features, etc., should be helpful for new participants as well. Also, the "content owner" would be responsible for getting things done, facilitating processes, collaboration and discussions, etc., but would not have to be the person doing all the work. And I just want to mention again that the "content owner" would not be a content dictator, all the community processes and rules still apply. The "content owners" will work closely with the web team and seek input from the community as needed. > > With a volunteer driven community, it seems to be in our best interest to > keep things open and available for anyone to work. While individuals and the > contributions made by them matter a great deal, I think we're all meant to be > equal participants and special emphasis on defined responsibilities may > hinder the process more than enhance. I am all in favor of keeping things open and available for people to work on, but that does not have to mean chaos and disorganization and stagnation. As far as being "equal participants", that's a good goal to have, but don't imply that that is how things are currently. Since joining this community, I have observed several situations where a number of people come up with an idea that has popular support and would like to implement it, but are stonewalled by one or two people who essentially have veto power, since they are the only ones with access to implement it and/or perhaps not willing to take on any more tasks/functions. So, I agree that we all should be equal participants, but currently, some appear to be more equal than others, and there are things that are not getting done because certain contributors are overloaded or don't want to give up control, which leads to stagnation. I don't think that serves the community very well. I also don't think that a certain group of people needs to be doing all the work by themselves. I think as a community, we would be better off if we diversify responsibilities, distribute control, have flexibility and trust in the process and each other and not see all changes as threats. I am in favor of well-defined responsibilities, a transparent process for managing content and features and providing opportunity for everyone willing to participate and contribute. So, Ben, I think we agree, it's just a matter of figuring out the details. Alexey > On 08/09/2012 05:30 PM, Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich wrote: >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 15:32 , Kathy Lussier wrote: >> >>> Hey Lori! >>> >>>> Interesting issue. It is a wiki and yet it has been the work of Ben >>>> Shum thus far and the approach we've been taking on the Web Team is >>>> to have content owners (well, people responsible for content areas) >>>> so I was feeling more inclined to treat that page as Ben's. >>> Can you talk a little more about how you and the web team envision content >>> ownership working? I know it's been a while since I've been able to attend >>> a web team meeting, >>> and my memory is a little fuzzy on this topic, but I remember talking about >>> content ownership early on. At the time, my interpretation was that it was >>> a way for web team members to improve small pieces of the web site that >>> were important to them, but I didn't think it meant they had sole >>> responsibility for a particular wiki page - at least I hope it didn't since >>> I'm sure there have been times when I've inadvertently edited someone >>> else's page. I would like to echo Ben's sentiment for open collaboration on >>> the wiki where anybody with an account can feel free to add or edit content >>> when they see a change that needs to be made. I'm hoping a future Evergreen >>> web site will follow a similar model, primarily because we are all >>> volunteers with limited time to contribute to the web site. So I thought >>> this e-mail thread might be a good jumping off point to discuss how content >>> ownership might work on the web site and perhaps to reaffirm the >>> collaborative nature of the Evergreen wiki. >> The idea of content ownership was discussed specifically for official >> website content, not necessarily for unofficial wiki content. The content >> owner will be ultimately responsible for maintaining content for which he or >> she is the owner, including facilitating content review and feedback >> processes, etc. The idea is to clearly assign this duty to avoid having >> orphaned and outdated content. >> >>> There are only a few people who can make high-level changes to the non-wiki >>> portions of the web site, and I know the web team and others need to ask >>> for assistance to make those changes because they might not have the >>> permission or technical knowledge to make those changes themselves. >>> However, I'm concerned that asking those same people to make updates that >>> can be done by anyone with a wiki account might be an imposition on their >>> time. >> Yes, by introducing the concept of content ownership we are trying to >> formalize and clarify responsibility for maintaining official content. Wiki >> is unofficial content, so I would just like to make that distinction again >> and focus more on official website content for now. That said, when it comes >> to wiki pages, a "content owner" could be defined by such activity as >> initiating a new page, making frequent edits, etc. So, it doesn't hurt to >> check. But it does not mean that this "owner" is the only person who can >> edit, since the wiki provides facilities to document/explain edits. >> >> Kathy, please feel free to join us for the next meeting on August 16, 2012 >> at 13:30 Central/14:30 Eastern if you have any other questions or input. >> >>>> Also, I suck at wiki editing. >>> Heh, it's not my strong point either, but I've found I can go far just by >>> copy and pasting the wiki markup that was used by the people who came >>> before me. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> Kathy >>> >>> -- >>> Kathy Lussier >>> Project Coordinator >>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >>> (508) 343-0128 >>> kluss...@masslnc.org >>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier >> >> Alexey Lazar >> PALS >> Information System Developer and Integrator >> 507-389-2907 >> http://www.mnpals.org/ > > -- > Benjamin Shum > Open Source Software Coordinator > Bibliomation, Inc. > 32 Crest Road > Middlebury, CT 06762 > 203-577-4070, ext. 113 Alexey Lazar PALS Information System Developer and Integrator 507-389-2907 http://www.mnpals.org/
