Difference between revisions of "Commons Steering Committee Workspace"
Carolbmeyer (talk | contribs) m (→Vision) |
|||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
== Minutes == | == Minutes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Minutes from meeting August 17, 2012 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Governance issues and the management of the commons: | ||
| + | Visions: link to original concept by Rahul- subset of the directions that the original concept is current- going towards a subset of what we discussed at the summer meeting | ||
| + | role of the wiki-complementary commons and initial web site | ||
| + | venn-diagram of the intersection | ||
| + | curation model - key idea of curation | ||
| + | licensing- everyone on the same page what licenses are most needed | ||
| + | rights that are most needed with respect to access | ||
| + | |||
| + | what the role of the steering committee or other management- "managing editor"- handling disputes/ questions | ||
| + | Look at PlosOne license adoption as exemplar | ||
| + | Wikipedia document proxesses and wikipedia commons | ||
| + | Fickr- guidelines and policies | ||
| + | resources: financial needs for support or maintenance: time to think about funding | ||
| + | |||
| + | point of departure: thinking about the vision and the curation model | ||
| + | |||
| + | differentiation- also can gain from looking at the other sites | ||
| + | functionality- web assests that are part of an overall presence | ||
| + | area of overlap- workflows, contents, how can we cross reference or link between them | ||
| + | commonality/ look and feel: coherent brand | ||
| + | |||
| + | capturing differences and similarities | ||
| + | web site proper has been online brochure: | ||
| + | external facing- no prior knowledge | ||
| + | wiki- active collaboration- about or within activity areas work with each other- even though remote | ||
| + | approachability is challenge: where to find the granularity of information | ||
| + | Chris: Tangent Points- link not a lot of overlap | ||
| + | different types of links into the commons- drill down | ||
| + | Conceptual differences- contents will be where | ||
| + | |||
| + | Who the audience of the Commons is: | ||
| + | hybrid: external component | ||
| + | also way for self documentation | ||
| + | external component may be more dominant in determining sort of polish | ||
| + | audience may not have as much familiarity with the inter workings | ||
| + | professionalism in the products | ||
| + | strengthens reputations beyond the community | ||
| + | by definition want it to serve that function | ||
| + | style guide: what should be included | ||
| + | work flow- lower the barriers without going too low that quality | ||
| + | many document go through many reviews | ||
| + | ESIP community generated content- community contributions- do we review those? | ||
| + | self curation with products | ||
| + | criteria for poster; (Flickr community guidelines) | ||
| + | working definitions for these three entities: create a table catalogue with content types- style guides standards | ||
| + | Creating a document with all these principles- available in perpetuity | ||
| + | wiki- ephemera | ||
| + | commons current snapshot | ||
| + | lookiung at the Earth encyclopedia http://www.eoearth.org/ | ||
| + | capturing quality information with user feedback: opportunity within the commons | ||
| + | lightweight publication workflow | ||
| + | helps define use for application purposes- pushes discussion among the community | ||
| + | Erin and Carol: Strawman vision for editing | ||
| + | |||
| + | Capturing Commons to inform: | ||
| + | reputation: individual and organizational | ||
| + | demonstration of productivity- concrete ability to show other program managers | ||
| + | discoverability and browse ability (judicious use of tagging and other schemes- aggregate lists of contents) | ||
| + | models- resources- refer to those in next conversation- reconvene and discuss the draft via Erin and Carol | ||
| + | |||
| + | Call next Friday 2pm EST webex | ||
Revision as of 12:54, August 20, 2012
Vision
Attributes:
- capturing quality information
- lightweight publication review (aka sniff test)
- reputation growth (individual & organizational)
- persistent content
- documents work of ESIP, including meetings
- citable
- discoverability (e.g. thru tagging)
- browsability
Original Requirements for ESIP Commons
Differentiation between Web Site, Wiki, and Commons
- Website - 'Brochure'/Marketing/Organizational Site, Assumes no prior knowledge, Primarily External Facing
- Wiki - ESIP Community Workspace, Prior Knowledge Useful as Wiki Difficult to Navigate, Business of the ESIP Federation, Primarily Internal Facing
- Commons - Curated Content, Knowledge Capture, Internal & External Facing, Content Available in Perpetuity
Curation Model
- Content Types linked to curators
- Tags for faceted aggregation of content
Licensing Options and Assignment of License to ESIP
Role of Steering Committee
- Managing Editor(s)
Miscellaneous Discussion Items
- Levels of curation
- Who Contributed? (community, individual)
Resources
PLOS One Submission Instructtions
- Wikipedia Policies & Guidelines
- Wikipedia Editorial Administration & Oversight
- Wikipedia Handling Disputes
- Wikipedia Editorial Quality Review
Wikimedia Commons Community Portal
Encyclopedia of Earth Guidelines
Anticipated Budget
Minutes
Minutes from meeting August 17, 2012
Governance issues and the management of the commons: Visions: link to original concept by Rahul- subset of the directions that the original concept is current- going towards a subset of what we discussed at the summer meeting role of the wiki-complementary commons and initial web site venn-diagram of the intersection curation model - key idea of curation licensing- everyone on the same page what licenses are most needed rights that are most needed with respect to access
what the role of the steering committee or other management- "managing editor"- handling disputes/ questions Look at PlosOne license adoption as exemplar Wikipedia document proxesses and wikipedia commons Fickr- guidelines and policies resources: financial needs for support or maintenance: time to think about funding
point of departure: thinking about the vision and the curation model
differentiation- also can gain from looking at the other sites functionality- web assests that are part of an overall presence area of overlap- workflows, contents, how can we cross reference or link between them commonality/ look and feel: coherent brand
capturing differences and similarities web site proper has been online brochure: external facing- no prior knowledge wiki- active collaboration- about or within activity areas work with each other- even though remote approachability is challenge: where to find the granularity of information Chris: Tangent Points- link not a lot of overlap different types of links into the commons- drill down Conceptual differences- contents will be where
Who the audience of the Commons is: hybrid: external component also way for self documentation external component may be more dominant in determining sort of polish audience may not have as much familiarity with the inter workings professionalism in the products strengthens reputations beyond the community by definition want it to serve that function style guide: what should be included work flow- lower the barriers without going too low that quality many document go through many reviews ESIP community generated content- community contributions- do we review those? self curation with products criteria for poster; (Flickr community guidelines) working definitions for these three entities: create a table catalogue with content types- style guides standards Creating a document with all these principles- available in perpetuity wiki- ephemera commons current snapshot lookiung at the Earth encyclopedia http://www.eoearth.org/ capturing quality information with user feedback: opportunity within the commons lightweight publication workflow helps define use for application purposes- pushes discussion among the community Erin and Carol: Strawman vision for editing
Capturing Commons to inform: reputation: individual and organizational demonstration of productivity- concrete ability to show other program managers discoverability and browse ability (judicious use of tagging and other schemes- aggregate lists of contents) models- resources- refer to those in next conversation- reconvene and discuss the draft via Erin and Carol
Call next Friday 2pm EST webex
