Sorry for double-posting. MNSU.edu was having email issues yesterday. On Aug 15, 2012, at 14:52 , Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich wrote:
> > 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 domains, much of it outdated and not managed.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/ > Alexey Lazar PALS Information System Developer and Integrator 507-389-2907 http://www.mnpals.org/
