next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects I did not intend to ignite yet another tit-for-tat. There are valid aspecs on both sides, which should be raised in a structured and larger debate. A few more comments from the peanut gallery, and then let us please deal with this in the various sub-cttee meetings (Can we arrange an EDITORS gathering sometime, please?) My final thoughts on the matter below: On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Andrew D. Wright wrote: > Since there is no way known to either me or the techs in the > office to produce these numbers, and a number of issues surrounding Precisely one of my issues. Our tracking mechanisms are.... ? > still listed on Chebucto's pages as a site and will no doubt remain there > until someone from HRL notices and tells us to remove it, just like PLENS > did with their pages. Which is no way to run an online community. Talk about a "hands-off" operation! > The problem is not with the way things are done now - we have > contact with organizations directly and they know we exist and host their > pages Well, the _office_ has contact with these organizations directly, and that is not the same as contact between the organizations and those CCN persons responsible for the online index, etc. Who monitors the "IPs" for appropriateness of content? Are we only able to deal passively with them, i.e, wait for complaints about problems, or requests to remove sites? Apparently so! >- but with the old way, where our contact was with the web editor > only and there was nothing in the way of a feedback loop between us and > the organization. They had no reason to contact us (no renewals, etc.) so Well, frankly, part of the reason they didn't contact us and for the lack of organizational contact was exactly that point; IPs were not invoiced. Not to be critical, but I have run into one IP who has had difficulty obtaining an invoice (required by the organization before bills can be paid) and I have two IPs that had to repeatedly request invoices. Is this part of our office procedure now sufficiently responsive? > Our role here is not to perpetuate our own labyrinthal bureaucracy > but to facilitate the participation of groups in the electronic public > space. Making things easier and clearer for them is the way to do that. "participation" is an interesting term. I would suggest that currently CCN is far from "participatory" in terms of the active engagement between IPs, members / users, and the organization. I see this as a vital component of our much-needed revitalization efforts. > Now, this will come before the Board and if you are interested in > participating in the discussion, you can be invited to the meeting. BTW > I'm now in the middle of some in-office IP tutoring. Andrew, given that (as you stated at the AGM), you frequently are unable to keep up with the piles of phone messages at the office, why are you undertaking "in-office IP tutoring". Should this not be relegated to another person / body with the organization? Is this one of the implications of the fact we no longer provide IP training? Marilyn: Rather than have this come up as "an agenda item" which we would then plan time to discuss at another future date, can we make a stock-taking of our current situation one of the activities at the board meeting? I would like to see us move into this "new era" with an orientation to action! Mark. -------------------------------------- Mark Rushton Community Support & Development Editor Chebucto Community Network (CCN) http://chebucto.ns.ca/~Mark/ --------------------------------------
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects