RE: Institutional memory? How shall we record d ecisions?

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 13:31:05 CDT

I certainly don't mind the wiki (I set it up for the group for a reason -
I've been running Wiki's for many years, and they're great for collaborative
documentation projects). :-)
To clarify, though, the site at
<> isn't intended to replace the Wiki, it's
intended to replace the current public site. At this point, the
functionality is done and the look and feel is decent. I'd certainly
appreciate suggestions about how to make it better - should we turn off some
of the capabilities to make it feel less "busy"? The sooner we cut over to
it, the sooner we can have a much easier to operate and update site.
- LP

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Ed Kennedy
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] Institutional memory? How shall we record

Hello Laird:
    Looks OK but busier than the current one. I think I'll stick with
David's Wiki for now for trying to nail the Jell-O to the tree.
Thanks, Ed Kennedy

----- Original Message -----
From: Popkin, <> Laird (WMG Corp)
To: ''
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: [voting-project] Institutional memory? How shall we record

Personally, I'm a big fan of bulletin board systems rather than (or in
addition to) email lists, for a couple of reasons. The primary one is that a
bulletin board is much easier for new people to join into, because it
presents everything in a browsable context. The same information exists in
an email archive, but it's alot more work for people to dig it out, leading
to more "go read the archives" discussions.
That being said, there's no getting around someone having to do the work of
extracting the results of those discussions and generating more formal
documents on various topics.
The new site (
<> ) has a bulletin board system, as well
as a "book" mechanism that makes collaborative authoring easy (it does
versioning, etc.) built in, so there's no issue with implementing bulletin
boards, etc., if we want 'em. I think that the result would be that
information would be more easily accessible to new participants, and easier
for us to maintain and publish.
Speaking of which, I've updated the new site's look & feel a bit. Please
look at it and let me know if you like it, or how you want it changed.
- LP

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Edmund R.
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: [voting-project] Institutional memory? How shall we record

Hello All:

      As I listen to much of the sound and fury of these discussions
what bothers me is that when conclusions are made or decisions made
that there is no simple central record of decisions. The FAQ is
helpful but is of necessity limited. I'm not sure if the principals
to this discussion are aware of how difficult it has become to search
the mail archives especially for someone new to the project. It is
alarming to me when someone says something to the effect of, "Oh yes,
we've already decided on 17" monitors." My question becomes, "Oh
really? When and where was this decision made and how was I supposed
to know?" I'm not being particularly defensive, just honest. I
suspect I'm not the only person who sometimes feels this way. I'm
also sensitive to not wanting to reinvent the wheel or to take up
people's time with subjects already well discussed (bar codes

      I propose a living document such as a regular email in which
someone records the decisions, sense or consensus of the group to the
best of their understanding and that would be added to each time a
decision is made. Such document obviously would need to be subject
to frequent review and revisions as part of the ongoing debate. As a
starter, Someone will have to dive into the archives and try to sum
up the data into this ongoing record. Also, this would tend to
provide better guidance to whomever is contracted to provide the Mark
1, EVM. I am aware that a 'scribe' or organizational/corporate
secretary has quite a power to shape the final product and the
ongoing debate. Do we have a serving secretary of the board he might
be inclined to take up this task?

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510

Amendment 1 to the US Constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for the redress of grievances."

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:38 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT