Next steps? Project manager and interim solution

Transition Towns Forum » Websites for Transition Initiatives » TransitionWebProject

Next steps? Project manager and interim solution

(20 posts)

Started 1 year ago by garyalex
Latest reply from garyalex

Tags:

garyalex
Moderator

Some of you will already know that there was a meeting in Bristol last Tues. 21 Oct., that was meant to be about collaboration with Ethical Junction, but ended up discussing future steps for the new software platform.

At a follow up Skype chat this morning, we all felt it vital to bring that discussion to these forums and the wiki. So, here is a summary of what we came up with for your consideration:

Survey Questionnaire

1. A questionnaire has been developed by the people that were part of the Ethical Junction discussion (now moved to here). It is nearing completion, being improved by a friend of mine from Diss who is a professional market researcher.

Interim software platform

2. The original proposal to develop a new platform will take a long time, so we suggest a quick, interim solution.

3. After some discussion, we felt that we wouldn't want to move twice (this forum and the wiki are already a temporary solution), so whatever is chosen should be capable of being developed into the main solution: "no blind alleys".

4. We will specify this interim solution on this forum and the wiki (as well as the main solution) and also ask a new question in the survey "What would you like immediately from the software platform?" I will create a new wiki page for us to use for this discussion.

5. We thought we would look at several possible starting points and named a) the current Ethical Junction software, WiserEarth, Plone and Drupal as possibles.

Project manager post

6. We will use some of the money from the Tudor Trust grant to appoint a project manager to take forward the implementation of this interim solution, to take us through to the main solution.

7. The post will start as soon as possible, will last for 2 or 3 months, will probably (but not necessarily) be based around Bristol or Totnes, for ease of access to the full time Transition Movement people.

8. We will look for someone who is already up-to-speed on TT issues, and recruit by word of mouth through the network rather than the usual route of advertising. We should suggest suitable people.

9.Ben will do a draft person specification and I will do a draft job specification, both by next Wednesday. These will also go on the wiki for discussion here.

I think this is a plan that will move us forward dramatically and rapidly. There is a lot of careful thought and wisdom already expressed in this forum, and I hope we can build on the ideas and expertise there to carry this through.

Check the software platform page, http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionSoftwarePlatform for links to the new pages, which I hope will be ready in the next few days.

Gary

Posted 1 year ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Hi folks,

I've now put up a draft job specification for you to consider. It is at http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/JobSpec
or linked from the main sidebar on this wiki.

Comments please!

Yours,

Gary

Posted 1 year ago #
edmittance
Administrator

Hi all,

forgive me for butting in, but I was sent your links by Josef in The Hub, Bristol, suggesting I might be interested, which I most definitely am :)

When would you be thinking about opening the job spec up and looking for people and how might I put myself forward for consideration please?

all the best
Ed

Posted 1 year ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Hi Ed,

I've just asked Ben Brangwyn that question too. (Not for myself though.) The job spec is currently missing a 'how to apply' section. I know of some people who are interested, but don't think the post has officially been opened to applicants yet.

Would you be interesting in being part of the process in some capacity even if you don't get the post? Perhaps you could tell the group a little about yourself and how you see this process proceeding?

Gary

Posted 1 year ago #
edmittance
Administrator

Thanks Gary :)

there's an email address on the wiki page (http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/JobSpec) which I had missed at first, but is now handily highlighted, so I will send a mail over asap.

I'll spare you all the grizzly details, suffice to say I take a humanist and behavioural approach to community software development as 'traditional' project management styles can tend to focus on the tools, processes and deliverables at the cost of the purpose of the platform and the group's activities that it is there to support.

Doubtlessly deliverables and deadlines are vital, but we can be tempted to focus on the 'solutions' and related processes software could provide much like we might admire a tool box and how great the tools are, before carefully considering exactly what it is we need to build, why and who for.

I have been producing websites since 1997 and have noted an amazing change in what a 'website' is, but no directly related change in production methodologies or conceptual approaches (outside of the admirable but still rather academic socio-technical analysis), and find that the most common issue is a lack of shared mental model which directly relates to a clear organisational purpose, resulting in people identifying tools they want at the cost of the human activities they need to afford, as there is no higher level process to establish what we are all wanting/needing.

Happily this is changing :)

I'm a big fan of working from a systems point of view, and considering the social affordances that new platforms can afford as well as the normal affordances. The new social models of engagement and interaction and related technology enables us to consider ever-increasing number of users on a platform, doing all sorts of activities and behaving in a variety of ways, creating an increasingly complex model for us to conceive and produce - this is a right pain for a group to try to agree on when it's all conceptual!

Hence we needed a new model to discuss and agree on these new community platforms, using language we all understood and clear transparent processes for decision making to democratise the process while taking the complex nature of the new software into account.

I'm also a group facilitator and community facilitator and designer, and I've been working with the senior lecturer in web design at UWE and we've got a simple open inclusive process which is half web production, half group facilitation and half strategic knowledge management, which we've taken out and about and it seems to help produce better community sites and unity among their sponsors and users both in producing the product _now_ and in producing an appropriate and sustainable group support tool.

As well as this, we should consider the emergence and lifecycle of a community (in both physical and virtual worlds) and how it will change and so will its requirements over time - how do we understand that and make it happen? We're not just producing a website, we're trying to produce a dynamic support tool for a range of groups at a range of different places on different lifecycles with different needs - this is to do with 'technology stewardship' and 'community mentoring' - so the production of a platform is also an understanding of how to facilitate the group's development and knowledge 'transformation' requirements.

But I'm getting into grizzly details and on my web producer/community facilitator/knowledge manager soap box! I was going to delete all this but thought I'd stick my neck out and leave it here as well as sending an email.

I'd be happy to be involved, share our production process, run some workshops, do some testing, support an alpha/beta/launch group, help engage users with the platform, be an interested bystander, whatever. Either way -

As Transition is all about understanding change, I'd suggest a production approach that takes this into account :)

Posted 1 year ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Hi Ed, Just a quick note to say I agree with everything you've said and that I think that approach is extremely important: the emphasis is on building communities that are collaborating effectively, building websites is secondary and only to serve that.

Posted 1 year ago #
edmittance
Administrator

:)

Posted 1 year ago #
stephenweblin
Member

I am involved with setting up a group in Newark. I have put up a website to start things off.

If as I hope our group grows we will have to expand the site and start to use other tools.

At the city conference I meet a few people involved with the software side of things.

I would interested to know when any central IT support might be available. I realise that as our group is still mulling we would probably not have access yet.

I have taken a look at pmwiki which transition town wiki is run on. I see it does not seem that the software has maintained since March 2006. Should we be using such out of date stuff? Other software I use gets updated.

The questionnaire I completed at Nottingham asked lots of questions. I hope that as a movement we can start developing/offering some basic tools. Lets not wait for a fully comprehensive all singing all dancing package.

We need tools to do the job - the software should be a means to an end and not distract us from the task in hand.

I remember offering to help with this project but have not heard anything. If I can help please let me know - you can contact me via - admin at newarktransition.info

Posted 1 year ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Thanks for your post, Stephen, and for completing the draft online questionnaire at Nottingham.

I agree that we should begin offering basic tools before we have developed the all singing and dancing platform, but the basic tools we offer should be capable of growing into the full works, and I second your comment about the software as a tool, not the task. It's really important that we keep that in mind.

PMwiki is not likely to be used as the starting point, although I think a lot more could be done with it than at present.

We are just about to appoint the Project Manager and set up the team. We certainly won't forget your offer of help, thank you very much.

...So, watch this space for developments very soon.

Yours, Gary

Posted 1 year ago #
edmittance
Administrator

Hi all,
(this also posted on another thread, please excuse the cross posting)

we've got to a point of readiness with the web project now; apologies for the apparent silence but we needed to make sure that the basic model was good and do-able, and that we'd spoken with as many people as possible (e.g. Transition US are kicking off a web project and we needed to talk to them to make sure we're all pulling together)...

I will be writing up the plan later today and posting it on the forum here.

Posted 1 year ago #
skoria
Member

Hi to all involved with the new platform,

I'm a member of the Transition Bristol web team, and I wanted to ask some questions and give some news. I hope this is a good place.

In Bristol we have 3 web team members, and then local administrators for the few web enabled neighbourhoods that have an IT literate volunteer. We run Wordpress, but are in the process of switching to buddypress+bbpress for the next incarnation of the site. A lot of central comms is intended to be done via the forums - but this has had mixed success. I've set up a mailing list, and we have various distribution lists. A central contact list is kept on a sticky post in our admin forum. Projects are usually managed via people's own emails, but a few core volunteers have Transition Bristol email addresses that they typically use.

Ecologically I'm opposed to SAAS, and if it does have to be AS, it should be our own ASS! (dunno what the other S was - sustainable?). So we're switching to an edinburgh based wind powered hosting supplier next month. But the ideal will in the long term be Bristol run hosting, using renewable energy and community/volunteer run ideally. My worst case scenario is that if a transition initiative is caught for example in a flood, the site will be able to be used for immediate news and emergency information. Also if we sign up for a large hosting provider, in this economic climate chances are they might not make it, so volunteer run community services would be preferred in this case. So now that I write it I see the need: we need better backup procedures!

I believe we need a much more capable intranet for our internal organisation - perhaps with collaborative software like that offered by opengoo, and more social network type features on the public site - to allow for ad-hoc groups, blogs and generally more evidence of people's involvement in various things. But I may be blinded by years of web development indoctrination telling me what is right and wrong.

I'm aware that even the wikipedia page for the transition network makes a huge mention of ning, but no mention of the fabled new software that I heard about last summer(also from that background transition software networker, Josef Davies-Coates).

Has the nascent international transition movement's hunger for ning scuppered plans to roll out this platform? I tried to figure that out from http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionSoftwarePlatform but every forum link I clicked on was broken... :*(

Anyway, will be good to meet you all, and hope that the bristol web team can be of assistance with this project.

Ale

Posted 1 year ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Hi Ale,

I think you raise some excellent points regarding hosting and support. And I hope your group is successful with its new platform.

Can I invite you (and other who are interested) to become a member of the Web Platform discussions on Ning where these issues have also come up.? See http://transitionwebproject.ning.com/ . It was set up by Ed Mitchell, and I would love to see you as part of that group in general, to help us evaluate the work we are doing there.

As a brief summary of what is happening there, for the readers of this forum, there are three pilot projects starting now:

1. The Local and Regional pilot was launched at the first East Anglian regional meeting in Downham Market on 7th March, at which there were representatives of 12 towns in the region. I see the main focus of this pilot as social: How to co-ordinate our groups efficiently but without hierarchy? We are using a viable systems model approach.

We have a new web platform under development as the infrastructure for this. See http://transitioneast.net . It is up and running now, but there is still a lot to do. It is the nearest we have so far to the 'fabled new software' you heard about last summer, and builds on Plone and uses the specification I have circulated earlier (see http://earthconnected.net/earthconnected/Practice/Entries/2008/9/11_Software_for_Connected_Communities.html ). We now have a well developed 'recursive groups' feature, so that all groups can have what is more or less their own sub-website, with full features including discussions, pages, news, events, picture galleries. We are currently working on the discussions side. It is currently a good bulletin board, but we are in the process of integrating it with email and improving its display features. Another week or so and that will be ready. Still to come is an exchange/trading system.

However, it isn't the technical side that I consider most important. We now have a group who are going to use it to co-ordinate the towns in the region, but we are only in the earliest stages of organising that.

2. The Training Pilot will be starting soon. We are working with School of Everything, which is a well established learning platform that builds on Drupal. They are developing a section for us on it at present. We are waiting for Sophie and Naresh to return before taking this much further.

3. The Knowledge Management pilot aims to link all the local Transition Food groups around the country. We are building a Drupal site to do this.

So, a lot is happening, and moving very fast. I hope that at the least, Ale, you will join the discussions and co-ordinate what you are doing with what we are doing. My thinking at present is that rather than one mega-platform for the whole of the movement, we need tools that link and integrate all the many web platforms that already exist or are growing. I would encourage anyone interested in that to contact me and to join the Web Platform web group above.

Look forward to hearing from you. With best regards,

Gary

Posted 12 months ago #
dahacouk
Member

We should be creating documents! The main issue for me is that with forum discussions there's no definitive plan - discussions can be circular and information can get lost.

Who will create these project plans? What is the mechanism for defining anything? If this is just a big discussion who's going to sift through all the good points, analyse them and them produce a plan to go forward with? What's the process here?

Now, if we were creating documents from the outset then none of that would be an issue. We would be collaboratively creating and growing the plan as we go.

I've said it before at...
http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic.php?id=239&replies=6

In order to assist the design process I'd like to propose that we work with and discuss structured documents. The problems with forums (like we are using) are:
* Important information gets lost very quickly when there's lots of input.
* There is no quick overview of what has been said over the years.

So, we need to have a wiki or some other document centric approach to building the requirements and, in fact, everything we are discussing.

Discussions on this forum should be about documents. Documents will contain lists of requirements as suggested by all members, etc. Then there'll be a voting system (or call or meeting) to establish priorities.

We have to work together not just chat together and that means working on documents where information doesn't get lost. I hope people can see that this road leads to sanity...

Cheers Daniel

Posted 12 months ago #
Philralph
Member

Hi Daniel, couldn't agree more ("We should be creating documents!")

Gary, some of us have a preference for the idea that we all have something to offer. Applying to join something has a central government (top down) feel to it, and doesn't appear to sit wholly consistently with an "How to co-ordinate our groups efficiently but without hierarchy" approach. Transition East looks good from a visual design point of view. But, it's not clear how there is transparency about why Plone is being chosen? It's not clear how someone who has reservations about being part of something that doesn't look as open as it might be can find out, for example: If more people generally are used to ning (the bigger the community of users the more it has going for it?), and if at least a fair proportion of the tt movement is already using ning, what are the reasons for going for something - which at least from the outside looks as if could be a schism type solution?

Posted 12 months ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Hi Phil,

You raise several interesting points here.

1) You say that anything but Ning is a schism type solution: The implication is that there should be 'one solution'. At the start of this project, I think that is what we were all thinking, but as it has moved on, it is becoming clearer to many of us that that is neither possible nor desirable. Lots of people are doing what they want to do and we cannot control that. Ning is one of many solutions people have adopted. It has its strengths, and to my mind, very serious limitations. (ex. no documents, structured or otherwise, very commercial with ads, no control or development, etc.)

2) Of all the different Transition sites around the world, none to my knowledge has been democratically discussed and agreed. The use of Plone for the TransitionEast site is no exception. That builds on work that I have been doing for several years. Thus it is actually happening rather than part of an ongoing discussion.

3) Applying to join? Nothing is closed that I know of. I'm not clear what you are referring to. I am trying rather desperately to get volunteers to do actual work on this project, rather than just have abstract discussions about it. Are you interested?

(Sorry for the somewhat disgruntled tone.)

Yours, Gary

Posted 11 months ago #
babarji
Member

Gary - I tried to look/join the http://transitionwebproject.ning.com/
this is the response:
'Membership to Transition web project workspace is By Invitation Only' and as a result I couldn't even read the content.

No one has mentioned Elgg here: http://elgg.org/
I run several ning sites and think it is well designed but if I had the resources I would go with elgg for future installations as it is free and open source.

Mike
transitionforestrow.org

Posted 11 months ago #
edmittance
Administrator

Hi all,

I'm just back from being away and catching up with the Web Project action that has been moving along the last few weeks. Just a very quick note to say:

1. Thank you to Gary for keeping this in motion during my absence

2. The Ning group is login and is related to an open invite earlier in these fora (http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic.php?id=366); it did require logins which weren't limited or exclusive and was always to be opened up later (along with lessons learnt we hope) - we were keen on focusing people's attention with dedicated conversations and thought it might help, and it is still ongoing. We are discussing more about this detail face to face tomorrow as number (3) is about to happen...

3. Yes - we are moving to 'collaboration' having been 'communing' - this will involve shared docs/wikis/collaborative documentation of some form tbc...

sorry to be brief but just hacking through a number of mails, fora threads, etc. etc.!

Posted 11 months ago #
Philralph
Member

Hi Gary and Ed,

Thanks for your replies. As you say Gary, people are doing what they want to do, and nothing wrong with that, including of course TransitionEast. If though there's the suggestion that a project is being done on behalf of, or to be of benefit to a wider movement, and especially if it includes some sort of monetized or funded element, (and by implication you will want it to be widely taken up later), it doesn't seem unreasonable to argue that the process should be as open and transparent as possible.

It's disappointing that you appear to want to misinterpret what I say. With respect, I do not say "anything but Ning is a schism type solution". I merely argue for transparency and what it may look like without transparency.

Of course your progress report helps with transparency but for me seems to raise a lot of other questions. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in asking questions if I get the feeling I'm invading some sort of private party. Other postings here suggest I'm not the only one to have found the process not as open or welcoming as it might have been.

I really don't understand why you didn't feel able to go with something open and collaborative from the start. As for any future involvement the best that can be said is that the more you feel able to be fully transparent about what decisions have already been taken, why they been taken as they have, and why if it's the case that you're not willing to revisit any of them, the more likely you are to attract the kind of help and involvement that you find useful.

Best wishes, Phil

Posted 11 months ago #
edmittance
Administrator

All fair points, Phil, and all.

1. location of work: Transition wiki lacks a few things which help a lot including individual identities (to represent individual's input), alerts, comments with wiki etc. These are going to be especially important as we do more collaborative stuff soon.

2. Apparent exclusivity of Ning group and private parties: Although there is a login required to the Ning group, it wasn't intended to be exclusive - indeed the group has grown far beyond those who originally responded to the open invite. It'll open up though. But fair point - and one for the lessons learnt for the whole project, as well as the support that should be provided for all Transition initiatives in the future who consider where and how to host their own web presence.

3. Open and collaborative from the start: interesting, interesting. Again I'll say we may be circling around different perspectives here. Either way, the workgroup activities (collaborative activities around recommendations) will be open (although some form of login will always be required, even for a flat wiki approach - for transparency purposes - representing those who work on it rather than excluding others).

4. ELGG: good point well made sir! Have admired it for some time. And added it to the list of platforms for comparison:
http://delicious.com/edmittance/transitiontowns+platform

5. Top down and letting people have their own choice: an emergent theme from the workshops and discussions so far has been the vital importance to honour the diversity of the network, and not demand any subscription to one uber-platform and process. Of all movements, Transition is this.

Some initiatives may want to use a web presence Transition Network offers, just as some won't. Hence a need to balance both of these potential routes, and consider how to support the exchanges of knowledge between network nodes (the most important thing that the web project can bring); the synapses if you like - bridging the gaps.

As well as that angle, what can we do to support those who choose to do their own thing? Support them, help them support eachother, train eachother... connect with others using the same tools?

See Ale's (skoria)'s post above - exactly a case in point - they're going their own road and need support and information not dragging into a centralised space. They need to meet other Transitioners using WP with the buddypress plugins and share their experiences with using green energy and sustainable hosting solutions etc.

Skoria - can we meet up please? I'm in Bristol too; we need to talk :)

hope that helps, we're going into collaborative workgroup phase soon, please don't feel there's any exclusion because we're not doing it in one place; your comments about privacy are noted.

:)

Ed

Posted 11 months ago #
garyalex
Moderator

Phil,

Firstly, I can see from your response that my previous reply missed the mark. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your comments about Ning. And your comment "I have no interest whatsoever in asking questions if I get the feeling I'm invading some sort of private party" is very telling, and I'll try to address that directly, as I feel I am struggling to get people involved here at more than the discussion level.

The issue you raise about transparency is a vital one for the movement, and not a simple one. I see the underlying issue as that we have no organisational structure and hence no mechanisms for making decisions. Who makes decisions and how? Much of my emphasis with the pilots is to create just such a structure, so we can co-ordinate ourselves without hierarchy.

So, how do we make decisions now?

For example, when we discussed having pilots, there was the Core Group (Ben, Ed and me) who could talk about it, and also the diffuse groups who have participated in these discussions. If there were a defined group here, with responsibilities towards the projects, who would be expected to comment and perhaps vote in some way, we could have held that discussion. As is, we don't know who is even reading these discussions, only a few people comment on some subjects, what about the people who's views might be relevant but aren't part of this forum, etc., etc.?

What do you think we should do?

So, in practice, things happen if someone steps up and offers to do it, as for example, I did with the TransitionEast project, Jon has done with the food pilot, and Nick with the training pilot. We can report back to a diffuse group, ask for comments (which we only sometimes get), and ask for help with specific tasks (which so far, we generally don't get). These discussions often throw up interesting and relevant issues and so are very valuable, but they aren't a great help at making decisions.

So, there is a sense in which there is a 'private' party: those people who are making an active contribution do talk regularly by phone, skype, in person, email, etc particularly if we need to make decisions. And we hope for useful views, and more, for active contributions from anyone else, who would then be part of the party.

I hope that this helps, and that you see it as encouragement to participate. And please, feel free to suggest some good solution to the transparency problem.

Yours, Gary

Posted 11 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.