Difference between revisions of "KM4Dev Core Group 7 September 2012 Meeting"

Revision as of 11:54, 10 September 2012

Items on the agenda:

KM4dev facilitation/administration

1) DGROUP: Peter's proposal to switch every week or two weeks. Need to decide if we do this and who will coordinate/take care of the Doodle poll

DISCUSSION POINTS:

• Currently, monthly coordination is done by Lucie, who would not want to do it if more frequent
• Idea to share coordination - could take more time to organize; currently, the two monthly co-admins coordinate among themselves
• Possibility to extend admin rights to other people and/or share tasks
• Peter willing to take coordination if with a back-up person; Bruce offered to share tasks
• Re. monthly admin rotation: don't fix it if it ain't broken
• The two co-facilitators/admins are encouraged to document on the wiki their process during the month, register how many messages, topics, etc

ACTION POINTS:

• Peter to update the Doodle poll
• Peter, Bruce and Lucie to have an email discussion to clarify meta-admin (after Sept 22) and inform Core group

2) WIKI: here is a snippet of a message from Davide: Lucie, I could set "contact@km4dev.org" as the contact address for notifications of new account requests, but that way I would have to 1) get username and password for that inbox; 2) manually access it from time to time in order to check whether somebody requested a new account, which is more time consuming than just going to http://wiki.km4dev.org/Special:ConfirmAccounts. My suggestion is that we revise the mechanism and set up a simple mailing list, so that all the people willing to manage new account requests can receive notifications directly in their personal inboxes. Adding/removing people to the group of admins would be as easy as adding/removing their email addresses from the mailing list. The email address of the mailing list could be, for example: "account-requests@km4dev.org". Every time a new user would request an account on the wiki, a notification would be sent to the mailing list and therefore forwarded to the current admins, who could approve the new account in a timely fashion.I can only specify one address, so as of now I am the only one who receives an email notification of new account requests. Using the address of a mailing list would overcome the problem.

DISCUSSION POINTS:

• There can only be one email address to specify notifications of new email requests - we should use the generic KM4Dev address but we are not using it... we need to have a discussion on the centralization of the admin of KM4Dev-related platforms at some point
• Suggestion: prepare a couple of scenarios to discuss BEFORE a Core group voice meeting to discuss
• CT Lab role in this? The CT Lab as a Technical group doesn't exist as yet. But if the energy is there in the community to look at these issues it could eventually happen through CT Lab.

ACTION POINTS:

• Lucie to email Davide to ask him to continue to do it for 2-3 months and also ask him to monitor the amount of requests and that we revisit after until we can make a decision re. centralization of KM4dev admin
• Have a Core group call before the end of the year to discuss centralization of the admin of KM4Dev-related platforms (Riff, will you be doing this?)

Status of IFAD funded activities

• CT Lab: Right now, CT Lab is silent and will pick up again soon. There's not a lot more to do in CT Lab - it was meant to be a short term thing to kick start an advisory group. The last part should get wrapped up next, with focus on KM4Dev as a community.

• L&M: July an email was sent to the wider KM4Dev group, indicating analysis and recommendations would be forthcoming. That analysis needs to be revisited. Melissa and Peter will join the group. One idea: after each significant activity (CTLAB, SNA), to contact some people involved to help reflect on it, see what has been learned, to document it. We will also oragnise a structured discussion around the outputs from the L&M group, possibly within the core or other small group before looking for feedback from the wider community. ACTION: Ewen to take care of getting analysis report/recommendations to get going - discussion organized, brought over to the core group + CTLab + SNA and then discussed with the full community. URL: http://wiki.km4dev.org/KM4Dev_Learning_and_Monitoring_2012-2013

• SNA: First phase of SNA report done. Question we have: which sub-group(s)/marginalized groups should we come back to and what info would we need from them e.g. what would get them interested in this? Need to cross check recommendations from SNA with L&M. Pete will do a small report and that will be it for his work. Different groups: the most active one, the most remote/least active - and finding out what's not interesting for them? Probably the latter would be more interesting but could explore doing both? Perhaps we can look and see if there are areas where we can pull budget to do this? Natalie: we did have some extra funding but thought to use it on SenseMaker. Costing SenseMaker would be useful. Peter will check within IRC about their experience with Sensemaker. Ana would like to dive further into geographic split of participants... can we have that as part of the report and also about the level of activity of members? The level of activity was in there but not geographically. Natalie to check if/how this was gathered.

• Focused conversations (internal, external)
• KM4Dev event
• Other?

Planning actions on pointers from various activities (e.g. SNA, L&M etc.)

Covered in previous point.