Difference between revisions of "Talk:CTLab:KM4Dev"

Revision as of 15:18, 20 July 2012

Questions about Tech Stewardship in KM4Dev

• I'm hoping this conversation will attract people who will want to help support KM4Dev's own technologies, which are in need of technology stewardship. Those who were doing the job - always informally - have either moved on or some of us are simply burnt out. So we need revitalizing.
• Interested to develop tech stewardship for KM4dev bearing in mind that the email group remains far and away our most important obviously KM4Dev channel, but many of overlapping smaller groups of people in KM4Dev interact in a host of other platforms. I am interested in whether that can be in some way connected, not necessarily technically, but less randomly than happens now. And like Lucie I am worried about operating online without funds. I don't believe we are a strong enough network to ensure that our identity and activity will sustain itself without that support, however much I like to believe it might simply emerge from our normal processes of work and interaction

[Nancy] We have the DGroups email as our core tool, but a lot of activity on the NING site which is not well connected to the DGroup. Plus the wiki (which is currently being upgraded, but as we see, the communications around the tech was not always transparent.) Then we have people off setting up "KM4Dev" groups on other platforms and again, little coordination. So we ourselves are in need of tech stewardship.

[Neil] Very interested to read about KM4Dev's experience with "people off setting up "KM4Dev" groups on other platforms and again, little coordination". Instinctively, I feel that multiple groups with the same agenda, or with undefined agendas, will have less collective impact than one large group, or a manageable number of groups with clear, complementary agendas.

I suspect this is a feature of the entire CoP global ecosystem - lots of duplication and little communication between related CoPs. And this, I fear, could at best be confusing for participants, and at worst will undermine the whole potential of discussion forums for international development.

[Charles] Online CoPs have proved that sometimes learning requires reinventing the wheel. Unless you create something and test it, your learning may be limited. In that regard fragmentation and emergence of different types/size of groups is quite health as it demonstrates that people are doing something and imagining new ways around the technology (some using local languages such as kiSwahili, Hindi, etc). Rather than trying to get all the groups communicating with each other, we may need to just map them and leave them to their own devices. Those which thrive do so according to their purpose while those which die or go dormant will have achieved their goals. We can learn as much duplication as we do through emergence of new things/groups.

[Pete] The KM4Dev community is one of the most coherent I work with: others with which I interact are networks or collections of people and organisations who overlap and come together on projects

I am interested in the overlap of our different platforms, bearing in mind that the email group remains far and away our most important obviously KM4Dev channel, but many of overlapping smaller groups of people in KM4Dev interact in a host of other platforms. I am interested in whether that can be in some way connected, not necessarily technically, but less randomly than happens now. And like Lucie I am worried about operating online without funds. I don't believe we are a strong enough network to ensure that our identity and activity will sustain itself without that support, however much I like to believe it might simply emerge from our normal processes of work and interaction

[Bev] I like the idea of grounding some of our general questions in the case of KM4Dev. With resources for tech stewardship at zero we should be nailing down some of the issues!

Some of Neil's questions imply a certain amount of work for love rather than money. That would tie in with something Nancy said earlier (in her intro) that "Those who were doing the job - always informally - have either moved on or some of us are simply burnt out."

I'd be interested to know from the tech stewards who are still here: what are (or have been) the incentives for doing the tech stewardship of KM4Dev? And what would be the incentives for someone new coming in to take over? Or is "no funding" a good reason for not getting into such an enterprise nowadays - as it gets ever more complex and requires even more coordination and accountability? i.e. what kind of resources and support would it take not to send tech stewards into burn out?

Nancy 2012/07/09

Neil asked some questions about the NING group (which I have not answered!) and this triggered me to share the message I got from a member via NING today which is related to CTLAB! The only way to weave this is for me to do it personally!

<snip>

Deependra Tandukar commented on Gabriele's group "Technology for KM4DeV" on knowledge management for development

Dear all,

I am looking for video streaming application that you could install in your server and broadcast events at your organisations. If any of you have such experiece, could you share you thoughts please. I am more intereseted in open source - if very good then enterprises software are preferable too.

Best regards,

Deependra

To view the new comment, visit: http://www.km4dev.org/group/technologyforkm4dev