Announcing the JC Focus Group

One option that has come up as a compromise (and that is technologically feasible) is to make them read only after the group has finished, and move them to the Inactive Forums section of the board.

While a user would not be able to read the discussion as it developed, the entire record would be available for anyone to read.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I think that's a good solution for many groups. The CT group, which just started, will additionally be posting live updates in Comms. Basically, the full text of discussions will be posted in a thread here so everyone can read and comment. I don't know how many future FGs will follow our lead, but I'd like any group I'm involved in to be as open as possible.

 

I'm confused, is there a different forum for each focus group?

 

That's how it's turning out right now. Wasn't planned that way, but it seems to have its own merits.

 

I'm assuming based on what I've been told that the decision was that since there is a Lit forum focus group going on and a Canon War focus group going going on, the risks were too high for certain things to clash if one group decided to read the others threads.

Also, being in the Canon War one, I can say that the Completists and Purists involved are trying to make peace at the moment.

EDIT: And I posted this in the FG forum earlier in response to Kimball's post above, the "two ideas" are the Comms updates and the read only forum:

I think a combo of the two ideas would be good. Have general updates, but then make the forums read only when we're done. That way, the users will know what's going on, and then making the forums read only will make them availible to go back to for reference if it is ever needed, sorta like the inactive lit forums.

 

publicly posting a FG discussion after the fact defeats the purpose of it being private.

i think the individual FGs themselves should decide whether or not there will be any public transcripts (partial or complete) of their own FG posted.

 

No.

The only justifiable reason for them being private is the problems associated with making the people VIPs of a read only board.


Otherwise, if you're more worried what people will think of what you said then saying what you think, then you probably ought to recuse yourself.

 

Making these forums public is a wise decision, it holds people accountable to the decisions they influence.

 

I think we'd be held accountable to the decisions we influence anyway.

 

True. And I don't think complete transcripts are necessary anyway. Just an occasional update would do nicely. It might actually make it easier since you wouldn't have to read an entire thread, just a single post. Sort of like the modsquad updates. It would be very difficult to follow everything that went on in modsquad if simple transcripts were posted rather than summaries of discussions.

 

But Mod Squad discussions are much easier to summarize. "We discussed X and decided Y." Since Focus Groups won't be setting policy on their own, just offering ideas and eventually coming to a conclusion (or perhaps several opposing conclusions), it makes more sense to me to present the ideas in full.

Edit: Grammar! *bangs head into desk*

 

i like the idea of them being private, because if they were public i think there are people who might see a particular statement made by someone, and ask to join the focus group pretty much for the sole reason of responding to that comment. by keeping them private while they are going on, i think it keeps people in it who really want to discuss the subject, not just want to respond to certain points.

i'm saying that because it's the sort of thing i would probably want to do. if someone said something that i totally disagreed with, i'd want to respond to it, even though i might not have the time or interest to follow the FG all the way through.

i think that publicizing the forums after the discussions are done is probably the best compromise. people know that while it's going on, they have some sense of privacy, but they also know that they'll be held accountable to what they say later.

 

The only justifiable reason for them being private is the problems associated with making the people VIPs of a read only board.

please.

 

Interesting ideas being presented about making it public.

 

If it is public, people will not get to the root of the matter. Instead members will hide it in layers and layers of flattery and obfuscation to prevent people feelings being hurt, and to stop a mirror thread appearing in Comms where non-FG members will be posting their ideas.

Keep it Private. You'll only make a lot of trouble for yourselves otherwise.

UKS

 

If it is public, people will not get to the root of the matter.
By this logic, what is the point of Comms?

I am not suggesting and interactive forum, but rather a read only that would be posted after the fact for all to read. This would circumvent the chance of the thread derailing or like threads appearing in Comms.

 

I agree with UK Sullustian, if people know that their comments are going to be scrutenised even 'after the fact', they are going to be a lot less forthright in their discussion... Hell, even a loud mouth like me will keep many opinions 'Off sight' for fear of reprocussion...

For example, I was one of those who was quietly rattling on about getting a third fan fiction moderator... There was no doubt we needed one but I kept my reasoning primarily to 'off site' conversation for fear of being misconstrude or being accused of 'campaigning' for the position myself.

Do it like the 'Mod Squad' and give a detailed summery with uncredited comments scattered throughout.

 

if people know that their comments are going to be scrutinized even 'after the fact', they are going to be a lot less forthright in their discussion

Once again, do we see this in Comms?
Everytime I have the pleasure of visiting this forum there is inevitably an argument with people from both sides expressing there opinion. More times than not, this is done in a civilized and eloquent manner.
All this talk of privacy and such reminds me of the arguments the AC members made as to why they should have a private board, and basically never tell anyone what they do. We can see how well that turned out as there is no longer an AC.
Why not try it differently this time? Why are we basically setting these groups up to conform to the same practices that caused the AC to fail?
If publicly discussing issues doesn't work the rules can always be changed. I can tell you from being a regular user that it's very alienating to always have the forum being shaped behind the scenes.

 

The FG is the Upgrade of the AC.

It is the XP to the AC's 98SE.

And there were a LOT of things said in the AC that would not be said "in public".

that caused the AC to fail?

It did not "fail". Altered to make it better does not equal fail. Failed = Not.

UKS

 

And there were a LOT of things said in the AC that would not be said "in public".


Could you give me a general example?

 

I also agree with Mara, in that any group I'm involved with (on an official level), I want to be public.

I'm not sure that the full text will work, I mean who is going to read a hundred essays on a particular subject? Highlights would probably be the best way to let everyone know what is going on. Unless you really want to read a hundred essays (almost a hundred already) on how to limit Canon wars.

 

It sounds like FGs will be really good once the problems are ironed out.

My only concern is how participants will be chosen. I mean, will you pick people who post here at Comms. regularly or will you scan through the Users Online list and pick at random? If you want to get a lot of people taking part, you've got to find good ways to include as many people as possible.

 

include as many people as possible.

Who are interested.

A sort of proportional representation was tried in the AC at one point and it failed spectacularly.

The most important thing is to want to have an input.

UKS

 

The most important thing is to want to have an input.

I agree and I would like to participate I imagine there are many people across the entire JC who would, it's just a case of reaching out to those who don't post here.

Are the mods going to go back to their own forums and tell the people there of the Focus Groups to raise awareness of the FGs once they exist?

 

There were no procedures in place for that when the discussion ended in the AC.

That doesn't necessarily mean they haven't created them by now, but it probably means it will be on a Mod by Mod/Forum by Forum basis.

But, I don't think the plan is for members to go politicking the mods running the FG's to try and get on any of them. Rather, wait until it comes to a particular area of interest for yourself.

For instance, there is no point me being on a Lit forum FG, no matter how much I beg, bribe or blackmail. The only contribution I could make is "EU is not Canon. I recommend the Lit forum is deleted."

Which is not very helpful.

UKS