<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Greg Dekoenigsberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gdk@redhat.com" target="_blank">gdk@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><br> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, David Farning wrote:<br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Greg,<br> <br> Thanks for taking the time to put together the well though out list of<br> concrete improvement that we can make to the wiki.<br> </blockquote> <br></div> Thanks David.  But to be clear here: I'm not fundamentally concerned with wiki improvements, per se.  I'm talking about team improvements.  If these teams are, in fact, teams, that how do we ensure that we are treating them as such?  A set of wiki pages is not a team.  A team is a group of people working together to accomplish a goal.  Each team's wiki pages should be a reflection of that reality.<div> </div></blockquote><div> <br>Greg's assessment of the situation is correct, as it often is correct.  The wiki is just community building tool, not the community itself.  <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> First the credit.  I idea of teams came from SJ while we were discussing the relationship between the SL and OLPC wikis.  I was talking about the _best_ place to host different content.  SJ suggested that their was not a best place.  Rather, he stated a lot of content fits in both places, just from different _perspectives_.<br> <br> Hence, the idea of teams or sub communities tackling the Sugar Labs<br> mission from different angles.<br> <br> On stubs.  A wiki is an interesting collaborative tool.  The wiki's value is ultimately as a source of information for readers.  Here we get to the tricky part.  The wiki is of little value as a source of information until it contains substantive, well written, and easily located articles.  But, nobody wants to go through the bother of researching, writing, and organizing the content until they feel there work would have an impact on future readers.<br> <br> Several community theorists advocate 'worse is better' as a starting point for generating initial content.  As long as a community starts with 'something', that something can gradually improve until it becomes something useful.<br> <br> FWIW, when we help the initial wiki barn raising about 6 months ago, we were averaging (very roughly) about 2 wiki contributions per day.  Now we are up to about 10 per day.  If we can stay on that rate of increase, we will exceed 40 contributions per day in another 6 months.<br> </blockquote> <br></div> I do not dispute any of this.  To be clear: my comments are almost completely orthogonal to the wiki.  The wiki is merely a tool.<br> <br> To be as simple and as blunt as possible: a team that does not have a leader, a task list with owners, and a regular meeting time, might as well not even exist.  We should either bring all of our teams up to speed, or do away with them.  My $0.02.<br> </blockquote><div>  <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> FWIW, I would like to take over the marketing team, roll events into it, and start driving it -- which I will start to do next week.  Lest anyone think I'm just trying to make work for other people.  ;)<br><font color="#888888"> </font></blockquote><div><br>Great.  Marketing is pretty weak.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><font color="#888888"><br> --g</font></blockquote></div><br>