Re: [cp] Welcoming Spaces and Mumbo-Jumbo
- In message <6d.1dc54d7b.2cfbe27d@...>, jpalmertx@... writes
>A good point Ian,Wearing my professional hat I would simply suggest that this is a circle
>you are right there can be too high a mitigation (politeness) level in a
>It seems the challenge is how do successful communities find the balance
>between conversation that is open and straightforward, without
>discouraging some members by the manner of discussion?
that cannot be squared.
Different people have different requirements and different comfort
Therefore an online community should have a range of areas where people
of similar needs can gather in subgroups, whilst (at least in a
community with purpose) the "managers" move around actively pulling
people together where that would be good for them and the community.
Given that this simply can't be done in one size fits all mailing lists
and yahoo groups enabling it became one of our core criteria.
ian dickson www.commkit.com
phone +44 (0) 1452 862637 fax +44 (0) 1452 862670
PO Box 240, Gloucester, GL3 4YE, England
"for building communities that work"
MessageJim,To me, it's the challenge you've posed that amounts to one of the arguments that the "facilitator" or leader of a community of practice must be enough of a member of the community to understand the community's issues and practices (including the cutting edge, not just "the standard" stuff). I know of one successful (95% online) community that was facilitated by an "outsider", but I think that that's the exception that proves the rule: a member must facilitate or lead...John
* John D. Smith - John.Smith@... V: 503.963.8229
* "With company you quicken your ascent." -- Rumi-----Original Message-----
From: jpalmertx@... [mailto:jpalmertx@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [cp] Welcoming Spaces and Mumbo-Jumbo
It seems the challenge is how do successful communities find the balance between conversation that is open and straightforward, without discouraging some members by the manner of discussion?<snip>
- Jim Palmer asked:
<BTW: for JTM, what are "sterile Confucian-type Mandarins"
anyway? ;-) >
I find myself very much in agreement with your points, Jim (and
similar concerns from Claire) but I am disappointed not to find a
definitive response to your final question.
AFAIK this is reference to a hybrid, non-reproducing, citrus fruit
recently developed in China (but this could be just my own non-
- At 01:34 AM 11/30/2003, you wrote:
I have always found that the best way for me to learn about things I
care about is to either be challenged, or to challenge. Opposition makes
you think, and throws things at you that you wouldn't think of yourself.
Result, deeper understanding.
Does anyone have any insight as to the cultural implications that might come in to play here? It is my intuitive experience that the way Ian expresses as useful for him to learn is not always consistent for others. For example when I was working in Kenya, direct opposition stops a conversation. The people I worked with had a different and very well developed style that started with similarities, created a sense of what was in common, then developed opposing ideas, often in a "what if" theoretical way that asked people to examine other's ideas before defending their own. There was very little direct criticism, yet there was critical thinking! The dialog was deep, the learning was present but it was in a style I don't often see in the US (I can't speak much for Europe!)
In a large group, such as ours, I suspect there is enough diversity so that what is welcoming/welcomed by one, may be a barrier for another. Thus we chose to read/participate/filter/ignore/sign off based on those differences. Any insights? I'm thinking of Mazevski's 6 cultural questions. I am on a plane typing this and won't be able to look up the cite till I get home.
(P.s> just reading all the heavy comprac mail as long as my battery holds out on the plane. It is interesting to read it all in one bunch, while I usually read as they come in. It feels quite different. Also, John, I think the discussion on onfac might have been triggered by something on this list, but I think it quickly ranged far wider. There was just a stimulus. But the cross community trigger is another interesting thing. What we can't discuss in one place at any certain moment being surfaced in a different way (generically?) someplace else. I think privacy gradients within communities allow that, but with a single list as our predominant mode of communication we don't have those subspaces and gradients.Nancy White - Full Circle Associates - http://www.fullcirc.com - 206-517-4754