Crowdsourcing design

31 Oct 2008 - 9:11am
6 years ago
32 replies
1366 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

What do people feel about crowdsourcing design efforts like the new WePC.com
by ASUS & Intel?

http://www.wepc.com/

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

Comments

31 Oct 2008 - 9:20am
Ali Naqvi
2008

wow... I just sent Josh an email about crowdsourcing and how it could
benefit ixda.org...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 9:27am
SemanticWill
2007

If you guys noticed my post earlier this week about how/what designers use
to keep, collect, organize their inspirations, designs, etc - I was
tribe-sourcing requirements and specifications from all of you - and I will
be using it for something I am sketching.

Thanks for that guys :-)

BTW: because IxDA is a tribe and not a crowd, that is why I use one term
over the other. We have a shared context, we have a community, a language,
we have leaders (community, list, local - in varying capacity). Mobs and
crows don't have any of those things which is why their behavior is
unpredictable and their dynamics chaotic. Think about the difference between
an Obama rally (a tribe), and a Palin rally (a mob) - the differences are
huge - one motivated by shared goals and purpose under guiding leadership -
the other a cult of personality motivated by fear. Very different things.

Back to the point - tribe-sourcing can be very powerful if it's within a
certain context, has rules for engagement, leadership and goals.

my 2 yen.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Ali Naqvi <ali at amroha.dk> wrote:

> wow... I just sent Josh an email about crowdsourcing and how it could
> benefit ixda.org...
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 Oct 2008 - 9:51am
SemanticWill
2007

Ali,

One idea I have been toying with is based on the old IASlam concept, but
having instead an IxD Slam - but the problem would be for something worthy -
like an all day competition to design something for a non-profit, best
designs pass various rounds, and the winning design is implemented and
handed over for free to the organization.

- W

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>wrote:

> If you guys noticed my post earlier this week about how/what designers use
> to keep, collect, organize their inspirations, designs, etc - I was
> tribe-sourcing requirements and specifications from all of you - and I will
> be using it for something I am sketching.
>
> Thanks for that guys :-)
>
> BTW: because IxDA is a tribe and not a crowd, that is why I use one term
> over the other. We have a shared context, we have a community, a language,
> we have leaders (community, list, local - in varying capacity). Mobs and
> crows don't have any of those things which is why their behavior is
> unpredictable and their dynamics chaotic. Think about the difference between
> an Obama rally (a tribe), and a Palin rally (a mob) - the differences are
> huge - one motivated by shared goals and purpose under guiding leadership -
> the other a cult of personality motivated by fear. Very different things.
>
> Back to the point - tribe-sourcing can be very powerful if it's within a
> certain context, has rules for engagement, leadership and goals.
>
> my 2 yen.
>
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 Oct 2008 - 10:09am
Ali Naqvi
2008

Hey Will,
well I was more into making some money.... I assume Ixda needs some
financial assistance eventhough members donate. But Ixda could really
become a hub for many corporations. So many intelligent people here
with so much experience.
MATSUI is a company that makes DVD players and their remote controls
suck! MATSUI could design better products by crowdsourcing via Ixda.
Ixda could start a merchant business model connecting the client
(Matsui) and the worker (ixda member) and get a certain precentage of
the overall winning price received by the designer solving MATSUI's
problem.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 10:52am
Dave Malouf
2005

Why don't we start with a more altruistic project? Let's crowdsource
the design of the community of practice!

Let's start a Sourceforge site and go! Maybe an OSS corp like
Mozilla will support us. But a design led OSS project could be a HUGE
evangelism effort, as well as produce something we need NOW!

--dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 11:28am
Ali Naqvi
2008

Thats a great idea David. I dont understand why ixda.org isnt built up
as an online forum thing... I mean like the pre made forums that only
needs to be activated. I dont know if it is MY computer or my lack of
computer expertise, but at times ixda.org and searching for topics can
be very time consuming.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 11:55am
Dave Malouf
2005

Like many design problems, you can't ignore the legacy issues when
designing for the future solutions.
Jeff has done an amazing job, pretty much single-handedly of making
up for the negatives of a pure email system, while maintaining its
advantages.

Jeff Howard FTW (on ixda.org)

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 12:22pm
Ali Naqvi
2008

I have been looking into Sourceforge and your idea is great.
We just need to take the next step.

Ali

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 12:49pm
Jeff Howard
2004

Hi Ali,

The search on ixda.org is terrible; guilty as charged. I've been
toying around with an implementation of Google search for the site,
though it's not ready for prime time.

But as to why it wasn't built as an online forum: the discussion
list actually began life as an e-mail list. The goal when the website
launched was to minimize any attrition by essentially just grafting
the website onto the existing e-mail list without making anyone
change what they were doing. No new registration, no new passwords.
There are probably a ton of people who don't even realize there IS a
website; they only see IxDA from their inbox.

Designing a web-only forum would probably be better, but getting
8,500 people switched to a new system isn't trivial.

// jeff

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 12:28pm
SemanticWill
2007

Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what problem
we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:52 PM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:

> Why don't we start with a more altruistic project? Let's crowdsource
> the design of the community of practice!
>
> Let's start a Sourceforge site and go! Maybe an OSS corp like
> Mozilla will support us. But a design led OSS project could be a HUGE
> evangelism effort, as well as produce something we need NOW!
>
> --dave
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 Oct 2008 - 12:56pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Will Evans wrote:

> Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what
> problem
> we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.

I think that's the problem we should solve: that we don't know what
the problem we solve is.

Think of how much better the world would be if we all agreed on what
problems needed solutions?

Jared

31 Oct 2008 - 1:55pm
Ali Naqvi
2008

Hello Jeff,
yes I agree. Getting 8,500 people switched to a new system is going
to be hard. I myself was a member of a discussion group back in 1999
and used mIRC. The admins decided to switch to a forum 3 years later.
2000 members switched over. Now the forum has 12,792 members.
My point is that it could be that ixda.org would attract more members
AND active members also. Ixda.org is perfect as it is... please dont
misunderstand me... I am just saying that a forum will help enhance
the browsing...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 2:11pm
Dave Malouf
2005

The board for the last 3 years has defined the problem of how to create a
vibrant, valuable and effective community of practice. We've looked at
existing solutions and when we map them against our requirements and
resources they all come up very short. So let me go from vague to more
specific.

We all know the email list is broken for much of the subscribership of the
organization. What Jeff has done is GREAT, but it only solves a small
portion of the issues we are facing as an organization/global community.

Local < > Global:
If you read the presentation that Josh presented it is clear that the
community is a being forged as a bottom-up grassroots organization, but with
strong guidance and facilitation from a central body. The local groups are
hungry for that support, especially in the areas of infrastructure and the
global organization is hungry to take what the local groups create and
spread it far and wide to those who can't experience, and to codify it into
something that is retainable, searchable, and useful.

Local groups need landing pages where they can present calendars, manage
members/subscribers/attendees, and post announcements relevant to that
locale. But those same people are also members of the global community. We
need a system where people can declare themselves as members of a community,
interest group, etc. and global needs a way to gain outreach to people who
discover IxDA locally first.

One of the things we want to avoid is what I call the BayCHI syndrome where
most of the members don't really feel affinity towards the parent org
(SIGCHI), and thus their energy, membership, and resource is isolated to
just that community.

But there are other problems that need to be solved as well, around
discussion management, job announcements, event announcements to the global
and local communities, aggregating content, allowing for translation
spaces/non-English discussions (but w/o cannibalizing the global community),
and many others.

We want to figure out how to make useful and practical connections to the
other social networks we use, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I think this is enough to give you a sense of the scope we are discussing at
this point.

What I see is a multi-year plan that creates a kernel of functionality that
allows a platform to form around and on top of it. I hope that local
organization energy can supplement it over time instead of everyone building
their own CommunityX, Ning, Basecamp, whatever system which just ends up
being wasted bureaucratic energy, as none of those solutions will ever be
able to scale to our total needs (even if they look like it, they fall short
and then we are stuck waiting for THEM to expand).

So what does this first kernel look like?
1st it needs to get us off of mailman. We need to rebuild the list, archive
and subscription management system. A 2nd part of the puzzle that should
probably be in any first release is the local landing pages with calendars,
RSVP systems, and content management.

After that, sky is the limit. That 1st bit by itself is pretty big for us to
take on. We need solid backend development support including expertise in DB
and Middleware and email systems that we current don't have. But before
that, we also need a really strong UI system design that projects out the 5
year vision and the road map for how we get there. This last part is where I
see the crowdsourcing begin and continues within this community.

Hope that clarifies.

-- dave

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Will Evans wrote:
>
> Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what
>> problem
>> we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.
>>
>
> I think that's the problem we should solve: that we don't know what the
> problem we solve is.
>
> Think of how much better the world would be if we all agreed on what
> problems needed solutions?
>
> Jared
>

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

31 Oct 2008 - 2:51pm
SemanticWill
2007

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the board currently working on all this
right now?

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:

> The board for the last 3 years has defined the problem of how to create a
> vibrant, valuable and effective community of practice. We've looked at
> existing solutions and when we map them against our requirements and
> resources they all come up very short. So let me go from vague to more
> specific.
>
> We all know the email list is broken for much of the subscribership of the
> organization. What Jeff has done is GREAT, but it only solves a small
> portion of the issues we are facing as an organization/global community.
>
> Local < > Global:
> If you read the presentation that Josh presented it is clear that the
> community is a being forged as a bottom-up grassroots organization, but
> with
> strong guidance and facilitation from a central body. The local groups are
> hungry for that support, especially in the areas of infrastructure and the
> global organization is hungry to take what the local groups create and
> spread it far and wide to those who can't experience, and to codify it into
> something that is retainable, searchable, and useful.
>
> Local groups need landing pages where they can present calendars, manage
> members/subscribers/attendees, and post announcements relevant to that
> locale. But those same people are also members of the global community. We
> need a system where people can declare themselves as members of a
> community,
> interest group, etc. and global needs a way to gain outreach to people who
> discover IxDA locally first.
>
> One of the things we want to avoid is what I call the BayCHI syndrome where
> most of the members don't really feel affinity towards the parent org
> (SIGCHI), and thus their energy, membership, and resource is isolated to
> just that community.
>
> But there are other problems that need to be solved as well, around
> discussion management, job announcements, event announcements to the global
> and local communities, aggregating content, allowing for translation
> spaces/non-English discussions (but w/o cannibalizing the global
> community),
> and many others.
>
> We want to figure out how to make useful and practical connections to the
> other social networks we use, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
>
> I think this is enough to give you a sense of the scope we are discussing
> at
> this point.
>
> What I see is a multi-year plan that creates a kernel of functionality that
> allows a platform to form around and on top of it. I hope that local
> organization energy can supplement it over time instead of everyone
> building
> their own CommunityX, Ning, Basecamp, whatever system which just ends up
> being wasted bureaucratic energy, as none of those solutions will ever be
> able to scale to our total needs (even if they look like it, they fall
> short
> and then we are stuck waiting for THEM to expand).
>
> So what does this first kernel look like?
> 1st it needs to get us off of mailman. We need to rebuild the list, archive
> and subscription management system. A 2nd part of the puzzle that should
> probably be in any first release is the local landing pages with calendars,
> RSVP systems, and content management.
>
> After that, sky is the limit. That 1st bit by itself is pretty big for us
> to
> take on. We need solid backend development support including expertise in
> DB
> and Middleware and email systems that we current don't have. But before
> that, we also need a really strong UI system design that projects out the 5
> year vision and the road map for how we get there. This last part is where
> I
> see the crowdsourcing begin and continues within this community.
>
> Hope that clarifies.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Will Evans wrote:
> >
> > Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what
> >> problem
> >> we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.
> >>
> >
> > I think that's the problem we should solve: that we don't know what the
> > problem we solve is.
> >
> > Think of how much better the world would be if we all agreed on what
> > problems needed solutions?
> >
> > Jared
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.com/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 Oct 2008 - 2:57pm
SemanticWill
2007

Dave,

Can we save this email for a bit b/c I think it's a huge deal that requires
a full time dedicated group of people to at least stear it over the next
year. Even if many of the problems can be broken down into simple problems,
stemming from objectives and goals - those parts should have a champion
within a group of no more than - say - 6 people, who then own parts (like
infrastructure, platform, identity, community, tools (calendars/message
system), and then once those parts are defined, we could open it up to
tribe-sourcing to sketching/wireframing/prototyping/design spec writing -
and then further down the rabbit hole to visual design, front-end
development, backend/database developement). This is potentially a huge
project, but one that could get done - a point that I am absolutely positive
about - with the right leadership and team structure at the top guiding it,
no matter what tactics we choose to get us down the road.

- W

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:

> The board for the last 3 years has defined the problem of how to create a
> vibrant, valuable and effective community of practice. We've looked at
> existing solutions and when we map them against our requirements and
> resources they all come up very short. So let me go from vague to more
> specific.
>
> We all know the email list is broken for much of the subscribership of the
> organization. What Jeff has done is GREAT, but it only solves a small
> portion of the issues we are facing as an organization/global community.
>
> Local < > Global:
> If you read the presentation that Josh presented it is clear that the
> community is a being forged as a bottom-up grassroots organization, but
> with
> strong guidance and facilitation from a central body. The local groups are
> hungry for that support, especially in the areas of infrastructure and the
> global organization is hungry to take what the local groups create and
> spread it far and wide to those who can't experience, and to codify it into
> something that is retainable, searchable, and useful.
>
> Local groups need landing pages where they can present calendars, manage
> members/subscribers/attendees, and post announcements relevant to that
> locale. But those same people are also members of the global community. We
> need a system where people can declare themselves as members of a
> community,
> interest group, etc. and global needs a way to gain outreach to people who
> discover IxDA locally first.
>
> One of the things we want to avoid is what I call the BayCHI syndrome where
> most of the members don't really feel affinity towards the parent org
> (SIGCHI), and thus their energy, membership, and resource is isolated to
> just that community.
>
> But there are other problems that need to be solved as well, around
> discussion management, job announcements, event announcements to the global
> and local communities, aggregating content, allowing for translation
> spaces/non-English discussions (but w/o cannibalizing the global
> community),
> and many others.
>
> We want to figure out how to make useful and practical connections to the
> other social networks we use, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
>
> I think this is enough to give you a sense of the scope we are discussing
> at
> this point.
>
> What I see is a multi-year plan that creates a kernel of functionality that
> allows a platform to form around and on top of it. I hope that local
> organization energy can supplement it over time instead of everyone
> building
> their own CommunityX, Ning, Basecamp, whatever system which just ends up
> being wasted bureaucratic energy, as none of those solutions will ever be
> able to scale to our total needs (even if they look like it, they fall
> short
> and then we are stuck waiting for THEM to expand).
>
> So what does this first kernel look like?
> 1st it needs to get us off of mailman. We need to rebuild the list, archive
> and subscription management system. A 2nd part of the puzzle that should
> probably be in any first release is the local landing pages with calendars,
> RSVP systems, and content management.
>
> After that, sky is the limit. That 1st bit by itself is pretty big for us
> to
> take on. We need solid backend development support including expertise in
> DB
> and Middleware and email systems that we current don't have. But before
> that, we also need a really strong UI system design that projects out the 5
> year vision and the road map for how we get there. This last part is where
> I
> see the crowdsourcing begin and continues within this community.
>
> Hope that clarifies.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Will Evans wrote:
> >
> > Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what
> >> problem
> >> we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.
> >>
> >
> > I think that's the problem we should solve: that we don't know what the
> > problem we solve is.
> >
> > Think of how much better the world would be if we all agreed on what
> > problems needed solutions?
> >
>
>

31 Oct 2008 - 3:25pm
Elizabeth Bacon
2003

Hi folks,

Yes, Will is correct! The IxDA Board is actively working on providing
improved infrastructure for IxDA.org so that we can better support our
community and pursue our mission of making the world a better place to
be.

I am project manager of this initiative and of course have been
working closely with other board members. Our team has been working
on defining needs and system requirements for several months, and we
have just completed some validation of our near-term features by
consulting with several local group leaders.

Now we are moving into the next phase, which involves seeking
development partners to build out the first phase of a new system
that will provide:

* richer member profiles
* an event/calendar system
* local group micro-sites
* tools to help local group leaders

Presently, we intend for these new features to co-exist with the web
forums that Jeff has created for us over the past few years.

One of our key goals in this initiative is to provide an open,
extensible community platform that will enable new grassroots
initiatives and member contributions to increase the value of our
whole organization. We want it to be easy for members to find and
share information, and get in touch with one another as well as meet
locally wherever they happen to be.

Pretty soon, you'll see a fundraising effort announced to support
this new infrastructure initiative, and I hope that members will
contribute in order to help bring far more power and pleasure to what
we offer at IxDA.org.

Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions!

Cheers,
Liz

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

31 Oct 2008 - 6:20pm
Nasir Barday
2006

Googling around, here's a contrarian view of crowdsourcing as applied to
(graphic) design:
http://andrewhyde.net/spec-work-is-evil-why-i-hate-crowdspring/

Scroll down for a scalding message from our analog for graphic designers,
the AIGA. Does crowdsourcing for the creative world diminish the value of
the work in the end? Hm, I'm gonna be thinking about this as I cross paths
with jack-o-lanterns tonight.

Gone trick-or-treating,
- Nasir

Nasir Barday
Director of Ghoulish Geekery
Interaction Design Association

31 Oct 2008 - 5:56pm
Nasir Barday
2006

Okay, time to out ourselves :-). I'm the lead designer/architect for the new
infrastructre initiative. Right now we have deliverables at all levels, from
personas down to page mockups. There are obviously lots of lines to color in
between, but at the moment we've focused on events management/calendar,
member profiles, and local sites (which I'm starting to think of as
local.ixda.org-- think instead of a sf-local at ixda.org, we gve out
sf at local.ixda.org, with local.ixda.org/sf, or local.ixda.org/sanfrancisco as
the landing URL).

I like the idea of crowdsourcing the design of this puppy. Suggestions on
how to manage the process? Two challenges I see:
- Of all proejcts with a self-referential design element, this one kinda
takes the cake :-).
- The temptation/risk of falling into a design-by-committee trap is high
- Being designers, we could iterate and iterate until, like, the end of days

If we went with a crowdsourced model for the design, I'd propose going with
the curated-crowdsourcing that Mozilla adopts. They have a public
free-for-all tree, but the features that make it into Firefox, etc. have
been cherry-picked by an architect and integrated into the codebase. This
brings me to a third challenge:
- We need to translate Open Source, a developer-rooted concept, into a model
for designing a wide-ranging product

>From the very beginning it's been our intention to start with a "kernel" or
two (thanx, Dave) and grow the system from there, rather than roll out a
huge monolith. To that end, we could make this process manageable by cutting
it into bite-sized pieces, front-loading it with our ideas on how it should
work. Much like developers have "unit tests" that have to pass before code
is even considered, we could have design elements pass some sort of check
before being submitted (a design crit? usability tests for larger parts?).
As features are submitted, a curator can make the call on whether or not
they make it into the live "build." Fair?

Okay, here's the first crowdsourced task: Let's see examples of successful
crowdsource-designed projects. Case studies would be *great*. Or do any
exist? Are we on the bleeding edge of a process here?

Peace, love, and "boo!"-tstrapped movements,
- Nasir

P.S. A start: http://www.steinbock.org/blog/2008/02/20/kluster/

31 Oct 2008 - 6:25pm
Dave Malouf
2005

The board does have requirement documents and even some wireframes. Good
stuff!
But the board will not be able to "do" this work themselves, nor should
they, as the work should come from the community, steered by the board. They
have a lot of material in place, waiting for the right people to step up.

I"m not sure why we should wait, or what we are waiting for. For the 6
people to get involved?
Ok, you and I are 2 ... Who else wants in? ... email me and lets get
rollin'. This project is 2 years overdue--no fault of the board. They've
been really working hard on some very important initiatives that are going
really well: conference & local groups has been going REALLY well.

So Who's in!?! And no I have not asked permission of the board or anyone
else, but that's the point. Jeff never asked permission either. He just did
it. We need to take some initiative. That's why I call IxDA an initiative
based org and not a volunteer-based org.

-- dave

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Can we save this email for a bit b/c I think it's a huge deal that requires
> a full time dedicated group of people to at least stear it over the next
> year. Even if many of the problems can be broken down into simple problems,
> stemming from objectives and goals - those parts should have a champion
> within a group of no more than - say - 6 people, who then own parts (like
> infrastructure, platform, identity, community, tools (calendars/message
> system), and then once those parts are defined, we could open it up to
> tribe-sourcing to sketching/wireframing/prototyping/design spec writing -
> and then further down the rabbit hole to visual design, front-end
> development, backend/database developement). This is potentially a huge
> project, but one that could get done - a point that I am absolutely positive
> about - with the right leadership and team structure at the top guiding it,
> no matter what tactics we choose to get us down the road.
>
> - W
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The board for the last 3 years has defined the problem of how to create a
>> vibrant, valuable and effective community of practice. We've looked at
>> existing solutions and when we map them against our requirements and
>> resources they all come up very short. So let me go from vague to more
>> specific.
>>
>> We all know the email list is broken for much of the subscribership of the
>> organization. What Jeff has done is GREAT, but it only solves a small
>> portion of the issues we are facing as an organization/global community.
>>
>> Local < > Global:
>> If you read the presentation that Josh presented it is clear that the
>> community is a being forged as a bottom-up grassroots organization, but
>> with
>> strong guidance and facilitation from a central body. The local groups are
>> hungry for that support, especially in the areas of infrastructure and the
>> global organization is hungry to take what the local groups create and
>> spread it far and wide to those who can't experience, and to codify it
>> into
>> something that is retainable, searchable, and useful.
>>
>> Local groups need landing pages where they can present calendars, manage
>> members/subscribers/attendees, and post announcements relevant to that
>> locale. But those same people are also members of the global community. We
>> need a system where people can declare themselves as members of a
>> community,
>> interest group, etc. and global needs a way to gain outreach to people who
>> discover IxDA locally first.
>>
>> One of the things we want to avoid is what I call the BayCHI syndrome
>> where
>> most of the members don't really feel affinity towards the parent org
>> (SIGCHI), and thus their energy, membership, and resource is isolated to
>> just that community.
>>
>> But there are other problems that need to be solved as well, around
>> discussion management, job announcements, event announcements to the
>> global
>> and local communities, aggregating content, allowing for translation
>> spaces/non-English discussions (but w/o cannibalizing the global
>> community),
>> and many others.
>>
>> We want to figure out how to make useful and practical connections to the
>> other social networks we use, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
>>
>> I think this is enough to give you a sense of the scope we are discussing
>> at
>> this point.
>>
>> What I see is a multi-year plan that creates a kernel of functionality
>> that
>> allows a platform to form around and on top of it. I hope that local
>> organization energy can supplement it over time instead of everyone
>> building
>> their own CommunityX, Ning, Basecamp, whatever system which just ends up
>> being wasted bureaucratic energy, as none of those solutions will ever be
>> able to scale to our total needs (even if they look like it, they fall
>> short
>> and then we are stuck waiting for THEM to expand).
>>
>> So what does this first kernel look like?
>> 1st it needs to get us off of mailman. We need to rebuild the list,
>> archive
>> and subscription management system. A 2nd part of the puzzle that should
>> probably be in any first release is the local landing pages with
>> calendars,
>> RSVP systems, and content management.
>>
>> After that, sky is the limit. That 1st bit by itself is pretty big for us
>> to
>> take on. We need solid backend development support including expertise in
>> DB
>> and Middleware and email systems that we current don't have. But before
>> that, we also need a really strong UI system design that projects out the
>> 5
>> year vision and the road map for how we get there. This last part is where
>> I
>> see the crowdsourcing begin and continues within this community.
>>
>> Hope that clarifies.
>>
>> -- dave
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Will Evans wrote:
>> >
>> > Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what
>> >> problem
>> >> we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think that's the problem we should solve: that we don't know what the
>> > problem we solve is.
>> >
>> > Think of how much better the world would be if we all agreed on what
>> > problems needed solutions?
>> >
>>
>>
>

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

31 Oct 2008 - 6:46pm
SemanticWill
2007

I am all in, in any way I can help - I will do grunt work, sketch,
wireframe, prototype - whatever.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:25 PM, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:

> The board does have requirement documents and even some wireframes. Good
> stuff!
> But the board will not be able to "do" this work themselves, nor should
> they, as the work should come from the community, steered by the board.
> They
> have a lot of material in place, waiting for the right people to step up.
>
> I"m not sure why we should wait, or what we are waiting for. For the 6
> people to get involved?
> Ok, you and I are 2 ... Who else wants in? ... email me and lets get
> rollin'. This project is 2 years overdue--no fault of the board. They've
> been really working hard on some very important initiatives that are going
> really well: conference & local groups has been going REALLY well.
>
> So Who's in!?! And no I have not asked permission of the board or anyone
> else, but that's the point. Jeff never asked permission either. He just did
> it. We need to take some initiative. That's why I call IxDA an initiative
> based org and not a volunteer-based org.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > Can we save this email for a bit b/c I think it's a huge deal that
> requires
> > a full time dedicated group of people to at least stear it over the next
> > year. Even if many of the problems can be broken down into simple
> problems,
> > stemming from objectives and goals - those parts should have a champion
> > within a group of no more than - say - 6 people, who then own parts (like
> > infrastructure, platform, identity, community, tools (calendars/message
> > system), and then once those parts are defined, we could open it up to
> > tribe-sourcing to sketching/wireframing/prototyping/design spec writing -
> > and then further down the rabbit hole to visual design, front-end
> > development, backend/database developement). This is potentially a huge
> > project, but one that could get done - a point that I am absolutely
> positive
> > about - with the right leadership and team structure at the top guiding
> it,
> > no matter what tactics we choose to get us down the road.
> >
> > - W
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The board for the last 3 years has defined the problem of how to create
> a
> >> vibrant, valuable and effective community of practice. We've looked at
> >> existing solutions and when we map them against our requirements and
> >> resources they all come up very short. So let me go from vague to more
> >> specific.
> >>
> >> We all know the email list is broken for much of the subscribership of
> the
> >> organization. What Jeff has done is GREAT, but it only solves a small
> >> portion of the issues we are facing as an organization/global community.
> >>
> >> Local < > Global:
> >> If you read the presentation that Josh presented it is clear that the
> >> community is a being forged as a bottom-up grassroots organization, but
> >> with
> >> strong guidance and facilitation from a central body. The local groups
> are
> >> hungry for that support, especially in the areas of infrastructure and
> the
> >> global organization is hungry to take what the local groups create and
> >> spread it far and wide to those who can't experience, and to codify it
> >> into
> >> something that is retainable, searchable, and useful.
> >>
> >> Local groups need landing pages where they can present calendars, manage
> >> members/subscribers/attendees, and post announcements relevant to that
> >> locale. But those same people are also members of the global community.
> We
> >> need a system where people can declare themselves as members of a
> >> community,
> >> interest group, etc. and global needs a way to gain outreach to people
> who
> >> discover IxDA locally first.
> >>
> >> One of the things we want to avoid is what I call the BayCHI syndrome
> >> where
> >> most of the members don't really feel affinity towards the parent org
> >> (SIGCHI), and thus their energy, membership, and resource is isolated to
> >> just that community.
> >>
> >> But there are other problems that need to be solved as well, around
> >> discussion management, job announcements, event announcements to the
> >> global
> >> and local communities, aggregating content, allowing for translation
> >> spaces/non-English discussions (but w/o cannibalizing the global
> >> community),
> >> and many others.
> >>
> >> We want to figure out how to make useful and practical connections to
> the
> >> other social networks we use, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
> >>
> >> I think this is enough to give you a sense of the scope we are
> discussing
> >> at
> >> this point.
> >>
> >> What I see is a multi-year plan that creates a kernel of functionality
> >> that
> >> allows a platform to form around and on top of it. I hope that local
> >> organization energy can supplement it over time instead of everyone
> >> building
> >> their own CommunityX, Ning, Basecamp, whatever system which just ends up
> >> being wasted bureaucratic energy, as none of those solutions will ever
> be
> >> able to scale to our total needs (even if they look like it, they fall
> >> short
> >> and then we are stuck waiting for THEM to expand).
> >>
> >> So what does this first kernel look like?
> >> 1st it needs to get us off of mailman. We need to rebuild the list,
> >> archive
> >> and subscription management system. A 2nd part of the puzzle that should
> >> probably be in any first release is the local landing pages with
> >> calendars,
> >> RSVP systems, and content management.
> >>
> >> After that, sky is the limit. That 1st bit by itself is pretty big for
> us
> >> to
> >> take on. We need solid backend development support including expertise
> in
> >> DB
> >> and Middleware and email systems that we current don't have. But before
> >> that, we also need a really strong UI system design that projects out
> the
> >> 5
> >> year vision and the road map for how we get there. This last part is
> where
> >> I
> >> see the crowdsourcing begin and continues within this community.
> >>
> >> Hope that clarifies.
> >>
> >> -- dave
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Will Evans wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Could you define the problem space a little better? I am unsure what
> >> >> problem
> >> >> we face and therefore can't think of what solution we might use.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think that's the problem we should solve: that we don't know what
> the
> >> > problem we solve is.
> >> >
> >> > Think of how much better the world would be if we all agreed on what
> >> > problems needed solutions?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.com/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 Oct 2008 - 7:16pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Nasir, great thoughts!!!

An example I've been following with great interest us the work Leisa
Reichtl is doing for drupal.org. Her blog has been filled with great
stuff. Disambiguity is the name of her blog.

Dell, & starbucks have been doing great work in this arena.

- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from ixda.org (via iPhone)
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

1 Nov 2008 - 7:57am
Ali Naqvi
2008

Hello David,
if I can be of any assistance I would want to help out also. I dont
know what my role can be exactly but I am willing to do my best.
Ali

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

1 Nov 2008 - 8:20am
SemanticWill
2007

Nasir - the key difference that Andrew Hyde (who I am learning to
like), makes is that there is a big difference between crowdsourcing
for a volunteer effort - and one where a third party get's involved
and makes a profit. In our case - this is volunteer work to make our
community platform better by organizing a grass roots effort to get
the job done - no one is making any money, certainly not from a design
of a new ixda site. This isn't spec design, this is volunteer design
for a non-profit :-)

~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Nov 2008 - 4:10pm
Elizabeth Bacon
2003

Dear heavens.

OK, guys, if we're going to "out" ourselves...I will reveal that I
fundamentally don't believe a crowdsourcing model for DESIGN is even
possible, much less advisable.

I believe that crowdsourcing can be helpful to garner ideas (e.g. that
wepc thing at the top of this thread), identify requirements or
brainstorm features (e.g. as Will did on the list the other day), and
settle on shared definitions (e.g. wikipedia).

To me, however, crowdsourcing seems utterly antithetical to the act of
designing. Design involves acts of conscious intention coupled with
creative insight to bring coherence and order to a system. I strongly
believe that design projects must have a strong lead to succeed, both
at the design helm and the project management helm. Nowhere in the
modern world can I think of any example of a group-mind, a crowd,
moving towards greater systemic coherence and order without a strong
individual or individuals at the helm guiding the crowd's thoughts and
intentions.

Now in case you think I'm some "genius design" practitioner, bear in
mind that my core IxD practices were forged at Cooper, a design
consultancy that pioneered the use of personas and two-person teams to
achieve design solutions. I am highly team-oriented, take pains to
remove ego yet retain ingenuity in the design process, and believe
that IxD benefits greatly from collaboration with other skilled
practitioners as well as across disciplines.

That said, working on design problems and delivering solutions as a
small team is not crowdsourcing.

Now, we may have a less radical disagreement here than I fear. Nasir
wrote:

"I like the idea of crowdsourcing the design of this puppy.
Suggestions on how to manage the process? Two challenges I see:
# Of all projects with a self-referential design element, this one
kinda takes the cake :-).
# The temptation/risk of falling into a design-by-committee trap is high
# Being designers, we could iterate and iterate until, like, the end
of days

If we went with a crowdsourced model for the design, I'd propose going
with the curated-crowdsourcing that Mozilla adopts. They have a public
free-for-all tree, but the features that make it into Firefox, etc.
have been cherry-picked by an architect and integrated into the
codebase."

What Nasir is proposing is NOT crowdsourcing the IxD of the next-
generation IxDA infrastructure, but crowdsourcing feature definitions
and perhaps also brainstorming the way those features manifest in
their form & behavior. And note that he also invokes the importance of
having a lead designer to bring order to the system.

But here's my HUGE concern if we were to pursue this route. I strongly
believe that IxDA.org needs some serious new infrastructure YESTERDAY.
Our local groups began exploding in March, right after our first
conference, and we haven't done jack squat for them except open up
Basecamp projects and talk about things. Local group websites are now
being developed piecemeal -- and they're all quite wonderful, but
totally disconnected from each other & IxDA Global. Our general
membership has also increased radically this year, and there's
extremely little visibility that anybody has into or across this deep,
valuable pool of individuals except for a freaking Mailman query the
list administrators can do of how many subscribers we have!

Given that the board has already done requirements and feature
definition over the last four months for the IxDA.org features that we
want to deliver in very short order (namely again: 1) richer member
profiles; 2) an event/calendar system; 3) local group micro-sites; 4)
tools to help local group leaders) we'd be throwing ourselves back to
the starting line. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that it would take a
least a year from now for us to arrive at some group-mind agreement,
much less achieve the *development and delivery* of whatever it is we
conceived.

Therefore, I'm highly averse to pursuing a crowdsourcing effort on
these areas from a scheduling perspective.

I want our organization to get serious about following through on its
intentions by hiring professional development resources to meet our
needs. Presently we are not closed to the option of purchasing a
hosted solution, but are leaning towards an open-source CMS so that
IxDA can really own the platform and give community members ways to
further enhance the user experience. I aim to publish an RFP on these
features in November, and we want to be able to launch solutions by
the Interaction 09 conference. Can anyone seriously argue that these
schedule targets are achievable if we were to pursue a crowdsourcing
effort or seek pro-bono development support from within the open
source community?

Please understand that I am confident that crowdsourcing ideas,
requirements and feature definitions from within this amazing
community of ours could provide us with some extremely innovative and
powerful design concepts. So, let me make a suggestion. Perhaps a more
appropriate design target to harness the great grassroots energy
starting to be exhibited here is around the next generation of our
DISCUSSION features. At the IxDA board retreat, the board identified
this important area as nevertheless secondary to serving the local
group and membership-oriented needs listed above. The infrastructure
team also has given far less attention thus far on to how to bring
IxDA.org up to speed in this arena. This design space would also
include providing better tools for members to dynamically share
perspectives & information and self-generate resources for the
betterment of the community.

So how does that scope sound, Nasir, Dave, Will, al.? Please, do not
derail our current effort.

Writing in pure agony at envisioning near-term delays,
yours truly,
Liz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vice-President, IxDA / www.ixda.org
CDO, Devise / www.devise.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Nov 2008 - 4:42pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Liz here is what I want to see before the end of the year from the board
before giving up the idea of opening this up, and having the board
relinquish control over the project (but not leadership/stewardship).

I want to see an RFP. I have suggested this privately to the board through
Nasir and then through Josh MONTHS ago after your requirements have been
done. Waiting for the retreat was "nice", but now that is a month already.

What I'm MOST concerned with is that the board has shown itself (BTW, as
much as when I was a member as with now) of being incapable of leading real
initiatives. (please don't force me to go into more detail), Jeff has done
all of the current stuff so far on his own w/o much board intervention at
all. I suggest we need to foster a similar model. The Board needs to get the
heck out of its way and "design ideologies" aside, getting it done is now to
me the highest priority.

Waiting for "fundraising" feels a tad off to me and the only way we are
going to get anywhere is with SERIOUS (K's of $ on the order of $100k) to
get this done under the current requirements.

BTW, I totally agree w/ you that the infrastructure needs to be blown up. No
one knows that better than me, but to be honest, that's actually easy.
Personally, I think the board (including my own history) has been high on
Web 2.0 cloud stuff that actually in theory can meet our needs, but in
reality WON'T. We need to build it all and host it ourselves. Why the board
hasn't gotten a dedicated server from which we can just build whatever we
like is really a problem for me. W/ a minimal investment in a hosting
provider this can be done easily and once done we can become experimenting,
coding, exploring, and prototyping. W/o it we are stuck theorizing.

I think that "crowdsourcing" is not really the right terminology. What is
needed for real is the Open Source. And yes, even DESIGN can be and has been
open sourced with success. If any project is "designing for yourself" this
one is. And the more "selves" we involve the better the project will be.

Transparency of design, process, accountability, costs, decisions, etc. is
key for the success of this project, b/c it is going to require so much
cultural change in our community (that Jeff already alluded to in his
message in this thread).

So why the RFP ... Well, if you as the board want to hold onto this (despite
the call by members to take ownership and for the board to let go of it),
show us that you can move forward. You talk about local groups not getting
squat, but that explosion happened on your watch, Liz. The best thing the
board has done for local groups is to empower them to not wait for the
board. Why not just take the same tact with this project?

-- dave

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Elizabeth Bacon <lists at elizabethbacon.com>wrote:

> Dear heavens.
>
> OK, guys, if we're going to "out" ourselves...I will reveal that I
> fundamentally don't believe a crowdsourcing model for DESIGN is even
> possible, much less advisable.
>
> I believe that crowdsourcing can be helpful to garner ideas (e.g. that wepc
> thing at the top of this thread), identify requirements or brainstorm
> features (e.g. as Will did on the list the other day), and settle on shared
> definitions (e.g. wikipedia).
>
> To me, however, crowdsourcing seems utterly antithetical to the act of
> designing. Design involves acts of conscious intention coupled with creative
> insight to bring coherence and order to a system. I strongly believe that
> design projects must have a strong lead to succeed, both at the design helm
> and the project management helm. Nowhere in the modern world can I think of
> any example of a group-mind, a crowd, moving towards greater systemic
> coherence and order without a strong individual or individuals at the helm
> guiding the crowd's thoughts and intentions.
>
> Now in case you think I'm some "genius design" practitioner, bear in mind
> that my core IxD practices were forged at Cooper, a design consultancy that
> pioneered the use of personas and two-person teams to achieve design
> solutions. I am highly team-oriented, take pains to remove ego yet retain
> ingenuity in the design process, and believe that IxD benefits greatly from
> collaboration with other skilled practitioners as well as across
> disciplines.
>
> That said, working on design problems and delivering solutions as a small
> team is not crowdsourcing.
>
> Now, we may have a less radical disagreement here than I fear. Nasir
> wrote:
>
> "I like the idea of crowdsourcing the design of this puppy. Suggestions on
> how to manage the process? Two challenges I see:
> # Of all projects with a self-referential design element, this one kinda
> takes the cake :-).
> # The temptation/risk of falling into a design-by-committee trap is high
> # Being designers, we could iterate and iterate until, like, the end of
> days
>
> If we went with a crowdsourced model for the design, I'd propose going with
> the curated-crowdsourcing that Mozilla adopts. They have a public
> free-for-all tree, but the features that make it into Firefox, etc. have
> been cherry-picked by an architect and integrated into the codebase."
>
> What Nasir is proposing is NOT crowdsourcing the IxD of the next-generation
> IxDA infrastructure, but crowdsourcing feature definitions and perhaps also
> brainstorming the way those features manifest in their form & behavior. And
> note that he also invokes the importance of having a lead designer to bring
> order to the system.
>
> But here's my HUGE concern if we were to pursue this route. I strongly
> believe that IxDA.org needs some serious new infrastructure YESTERDAY. Our
> local groups began exploding in March, right after our first conference, and
> we haven't done jack squat for them except open up Basecamp projects and
> talk about things. Local group websites are now being developed piecemeal --
> and they're all quite wonderful, but totally disconnected from each other &
> IxDA Global. Our general membership has also increased radically this year,
> and there's extremely little visibility that anybody has into or across this
> deep, valuable pool of individuals except for a freaking Mailman query the
> list administrators can do of how many subscribers we have!
>
> Given that the board has already done requirements and feature definition
> over the last four months for the IxDA.org features that we want to deliver
> in very short order (namely again: 1) richer member profiles; 2) an
> event/calendar system; 3) local group micro-sites; 4) tools to help local
> group leaders) we'd be throwing ourselves back to the starting line.
> Furthermore, I'm quite sure that it would take a least a year from now for
> us to arrive at some group-mind agreement, much less achieve the
> *development and delivery* of whatever it is we conceived.
>
> Therefore, I'm highly averse to pursuing a crowdsourcing effort on these
> areas from a scheduling perspective.
>
> I want our organization to get serious about following through on its
> intentions by hiring professional development resources to meet our needs.
> Presently we are not closed to the option of purchasing a hosted solution,
> but are leaning towards an open-source CMS so that IxDA can really own the
> platform and give community members ways to further enhance the user
> experience. I aim to publish an RFP on these features in November, and we
> want to be able to launch solutions by the Interaction 09 conference. Can
> anyone seriously argue that these schedule targets are achievable if we were
> to pursue a crowdsourcing effort or seek pro-bono development support from
> within the open source community?
>
> Please understand that I am confident that crowdsourcing ideas,
> requirements and feature definitions from within this amazing community of
> ours could provide us with some extremely innovative and powerful design
> concepts. So, let me make a suggestion. Perhaps a more appropriate design
> target to harness the great grassroots energy starting to be exhibited here
> is around the next generation of our DISCUSSION features. At the IxDA board
> retreat, the board identified this important area as nevertheless secondary
> to serving the local group and membership-oriented needs listed above. The
> infrastructure team also has given far less attention thus far on to how to
> bring IxDA.org up to speed in this arena. This design space would also
> include providing better tools for members to dynamically share perspectives
> & information and self-generate resources for the betterment of the
> community.
>
> So how does that scope sound, Nasir, Dave, Will, al.? Please, do not derail
> our current effort.
>
> Writing in pure agony at envisioning near-term delays,
> yours truly,
> Liz
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Vice-President, IxDA / www.ixda.org
> CDO, Devise / www.devise.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

1 Nov 2008 - 5:22pm
Elizabeth Bacon
2003

Dave,

Thanks for your inputs. Some more background.... The board retreat was
an extremely important checkpoint to refine our scope and reach some
agreement on what we could achieve in the near term. We only finished
the requirements last week, after a final round of review with key
local group stakeholders. I'm working on the RFP for release later
this month, hopefully. Of course I agree with you that "getting it
done is now to me the highest priority". How is opening this effort up
for more public wrangling and design-by-committee going to get this
done faster?

Yes, the explosion of local groups happened on my watch, and it's why
I took over project management of this initiative in July. Since I've
been leading the project, we've moved from having some initial
wireframes created without any research or needs analysis that I'm
aware of, to a stage where I'm confident that we understand some of
our members' key needs. I now believe we can define an RFP and hire
dedicated resources to get this thing built.

This coming week, I will be speaking with developers who are going to
help us understand costs. Where did your $100k estimate come from? The
best hosted solution we've seen, HiveLive, is estimated to cost $10k
to deploy and perhaps $2k/month to sustain. We're not waiting for
fundraising; we are going to wait to understand our costs before
starting fundraising.

Please help me understand how we have a cultural issue with the
current scope, which again is focused on member profiles, event/
calendar, and local group mini-sites. Local groups and members are
clamoring for this material! The cultural issues I see will lie with
our subsequent (and yes, highly necessary) abandonment of the Mailman-
based discussion approach. This is absolutely going to be a political
issue and one for which we need to turn to our community in order to
assess its viability.

It sounds to me like you're saying that you want a chance to build
these new features on your own/with other volunteers. I do think IxDA
should consider leasing an inexpensive server slice for you & others
to have a sandbox for developing our next-generation infrastructure. I
just think that you guys should focus on the DISCUSSION and resource-
type features and not those that we've been working on for many months
now.

Cheers,
Liz

On Nov 1, 2008, at 3:42 PM, David Malouf wrote:

> Liz here is what I want to see before the end of the year from the
> board before giving up the idea of opening this up, and having the
> board relinquish control over the project (but not leadership/
> stewardship).
>
> I want to see an RFP. I have suggested this privately to the board
> through Nasir and then through Josh MONTHS ago after your
> requirements have been done. Waiting for the retreat was "nice", but
> now that is a month already.
>
> What I'm MOST concerned with is that the board has shown itself
> (BTW, as much as when I was a member as with now) of being incapable
> of leading real initiatives. (please don't force me to go into more
> detail), Jeff has done all of the current stuff so far on his own w/
> o much board intervention at all. I suggest we need to foster a
> similar model. The Board needs to get the heck out of its way and
> "design ideologies" aside, getting it done is now to me the highest
> priority.
>
> Waiting for "fundraising" feels a tad off to me and the only way we
> are going to get anywhere is with SERIOUS (K's of $ on the order of
> $100k) to get this done under the current requirements.
>
> BTW, I totally agree w/ you that the infrastructure needs to be
> blown up. No one knows that better than me, but to be honest, that's
> actually easy. Personally, I think the board (including my own
> history) has been high on Web 2.0 cloud stuff that actually in
> theory can meet our needs, but in reality WON'T. We need to build it
> all and host it ourselves. Why the board hasn't gotten a dedicated
> server from which we can just build whatever we like is really a
> problem for me. W/ a minimal investment in a hosting provider this
> can be done easily and once done we can become experimenting,
> coding, exploring, and prototyping. W/o it we are stuck theorizing.
>
> I think that "crowdsourcing" is not really the right terminology.
> What is needed for real is the Open Source. And yes, even DESIGN can
> be and has been open sourced with success. If any project is
> "designing for yourself" this one is. And the more "selves" we
> involve the better the project will be.
>
> Transparency of design, process, accountability, costs, decisions,
> etc. is key for the success of this project, b/c it is going to
> require so much cultural change in our community (that Jeff already
> alluded to in his message in this thread).
>
> So why the RFP ... Well, if you as the board want to hold onto this
> (despite the call by members to take ownership and for the board to
> let go of it), show us that you can move forward. You talk about
> local groups not getting squat, but that explosion happened on your
> watch, Liz. The best thing the board has done for local groups is to
> empower them to not wait for the board. Why not just take the same
> tact with this project?
>
> -- dave
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Elizabeth Bacon <lists at elizabethbacon.com
> > wrote:
> Dear heavens.
>
> OK, guys, if we're going to "out" ourselves...I will reveal that I
> fundamentally don't believe a crowdsourcing model for DESIGN is even
> possible, much less advisable.
>
> I believe that crowdsourcing can be helpful to garner ideas (e.g.
> that wepc thing at the top of this thread), identify requirements or
> brainstorm features (e.g. as Will did on the list the other day),
> and settle on shared definitions (e.g. wikipedia).
>
> To me, however, crowdsourcing seems utterly antithetical to the act
> of designing. Design involves acts of conscious intention coupled
> with creative insight to bring coherence and order to a system. I
> strongly believe that design projects must have a strong lead to
> succeed, both at the design helm and the project management helm.
> Nowhere in the modern world can I think of any example of a group-
> mind, a crowd, moving towards greater systemic coherence and order
> without a strong individual or individuals at the helm guiding the
> crowd's thoughts and intentions.
>
> Now in case you think I'm some "genius design" practitioner, bear in
> mind that my core IxD practices were forged at Cooper, a design
> consultancy that pioneered the use of personas and two-person teams
> to achieve design solutions. I am highly team-oriented, take pains
> to remove ego yet retain ingenuity in the design process, and
> believe that IxD benefits greatly from collaboration with other
> skilled practitioners as well as across disciplines.
>
> That said, working on design problems and delivering solutions as a
> small team is not crowdsourcing.
>
> Now, we may have a less radical disagreement here than I fear. Nasir
> wrote:
>
> "I like the idea of crowdsourcing the design of this puppy.
> Suggestions on how to manage the process? Two challenges I see:
> # Of all projects with a self-referential design element, this one
> kinda takes the cake :-).
> # The temptation/risk of falling into a design-by-committee trap is
> high
> # Being designers, we could iterate and iterate until, like, the end
> of days
>
> If we went with a crowdsourced model for the design, I'd propose
> going with the curated-crowdsourcing that Mozilla adopts. They have
> a public free-for-all tree, but the features that make it into
> Firefox, etc. have been cherry-picked by an architect and integrated
> into the codebase."
>
> What Nasir is proposing is NOT crowdsourcing the IxD of the next-
> generation IxDA infrastructure, but crowdsourcing feature
> definitions and perhaps also brainstorming the way those features
> manifest in their form & behavior. And note that he also invokes the
> importance of having a lead designer to bring order to the system.
>
> But here's my HUGE concern if we were to pursue this route. I
> strongly believe that IxDA.org needs some serious new infrastructure
> YESTERDAY. Our local groups began exploding in March, right after
> our first conference, and we haven't done jack squat for them except
> open up Basecamp projects and talk about things. Local group
> websites are now being developed piecemeal -- and they're all quite
> wonderful, but totally disconnected from each other & IxDA Global.
> Our general membership has also increased radically this year, and
> there's extremely little visibility that anybody has into or across
> this deep, valuable pool of individuals except for a freaking
> Mailman query the list administrators can do of how many subscribers
> we have!
>
> Given that the board has already done requirements and feature
> definition over the last four months for the IxDA.org features that
> we want to deliver in very short order (namely again: 1) richer
> member profiles; 2) an event/calendar system; 3) local group micro-
> sites; 4) tools to help local group leaders) we'd be throwing
> ourselves back to the starting line. Furthermore, I'm quite sure
> that it would take a least a year from now for us to arrive at some
> group-mind agreement, much less achieve the *development and
> delivery* of whatever it is we conceived.
>
> Therefore, I'm highly averse to pursuing a crowdsourcing effort on
> these areas from a scheduling perspective.
>
> I want our organization to get serious about following through on
> its intentions by hiring professional development resources to meet
> our needs. Presently we are not closed to the option of purchasing a
> hosted solution, but are leaning towards an open-source CMS so that
> IxDA can really own the platform and give community members ways to
> further enhance the user experience. I aim to publish an RFP on
> these features in November, and we want to be able to launch
> solutions by the Interaction 09 conference. Can anyone seriously
> argue that these schedule targets are achievable if we were to
> pursue a crowdsourcing effort or seek pro-bono development support
> from within the open source community?
>
> Please understand that I am confident that crowdsourcing ideas,
> requirements and feature definitions from within this amazing
> community of ours could provide us with some extremely innovative
> and powerful design concepts. So, let me make a suggestion. Perhaps
> a more appropriate design target to harness the great grassroots
> energy starting to be exhibited here is around the next generation
> of our DISCUSSION features. At the IxDA board retreat, the board
> identified this important area as nevertheless secondary to serving
> the local group and membership-oriented needs listed above. The
> infrastructure team also has given far less attention thus far on to
> how to bring IxDA.org up to speed in this arena. This design space
> would also include providing better tools for members to dynamically
> share perspectives & information and self-generate resources for the
> betterment of the community.
>
> So how does that scope sound, Nasir, Dave, Will, al.? Please, do not
> derail our current effort.
>
> Writing in pure agony at envisioning near-term delays,
> yours truly,
> Liz
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Vice-President, IxDA / www.ixda.org
> CDO, Devise / www.devise.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vice-President, IxDA / www.ixda.org
CDO, Devise / www.devise.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Nov 2008 - 7:30pm
Jeff Howard
2004

There are a ton of other things that could probably stand alone as
individual projects for people who are interested in contributing to
the growth of the website. An IxDA job board, booklist, redesigned
search, and new thread posting are a few of the things that come to
mind offhand. These things need a commitment of time and development
resources to make them happen.

I also wanted to mention that the current website isn't some sort of
rogue effort. The board has been there since day one to support the
initiative, from expanding on the initial concept to funding the
visual design resource who worked on the most recent version.

Except for my wildly misguided and short-lived attempt to
preemptively ban people from certain parts of Missouri, they've been
fairly open to trying new things. ;-)

// jeff

Elizabeth wrote:
> I just think that you guys should focus on the DISCUSSION
> and resource- type features and not those that we've
> been working on for many months now.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

1 Nov 2008 - 8:11pm
Dave Malouf
2005

A few thoughts:
Jeff, nice try trying to help the board save face, but besides the
money for the visual design, to say that it was really anything but
all you for the last 2 years, would be changing humility, to down
right revisionism. Yes, the board "supports you", but heck, they
really don't have a choice.

Liz,
HiveLive won't cut it. As soon as Nasir came back from the retreat
and spoke to me about the boards push to HiveLive, I knew right away
that it won't work. HiveLive is email independent for one and email
HAS to be a core part of our infrastructure. There are so many other
components missing from our requirements. We are trying to do
something so much more broad than any one of these existing systems
can handle, which is why we need to build this from the ground up.

Also, that #. 10k? Does that really include them building the
applications we need? To give a comparison, the customizations on
Crowdvine normally got for $5k and the level of simplicity compared
to what we need just for local groups let alone everything else we
need is an order of magnitude more complex. So if they can do it for
$10k, either they are geniuses (I have no belief they are), or they
are not fully comprehending what our requirements are (and yes, I
know exactly what the existing requirements are).
Someone please point me to someone/something that proves me wrong
here, b/c if it is all there ready to bake in a box, then I will be
the 1st one to jump on board and go "Yeah!!!!!!" (BTW, we've been
there before with other tools too, like NING, Tomoya, CollectiveX,
even Drupal/CivicSpace. (BTW, they lost me at "no coding, just
clicking").

My number of $100k, is based on the 15 years experience of project
managing and designing and building enterprise software. Heck! the
single desktop app that I'm working on now had $100k for ONE
contract developer.

What we are trying to do has never been done before. seriouslly,
I've spent 2 years looking and nope! not out there. The level of
integration and the type of features, across nested yet related
communities of shared content types and various levels of
administration privileges, and infrastructural tools, have not been
combined in a single application/platform before.

But let's take a step back. You asked that we just work on the
"discussion list". Hmm? interesting choice. The heart and soul of
the issues facing the discussion list, center around the same issues
as those for local groups: membership/subscription management. The
issues are entwined, so separating out "discussions" from "local"
doesn't really seem to make sense for me because the first design
challenge we face as a community is to make the subscription
management system work across multiple contexts. This also means
leaving mailman, creating an openID enabled system, and allowing
people to have profiles with settings that go deeper than any system
out there to date.

Here was the suggestion I made to Nasir about 3 months ago, or was it
5 or so. I can't remember any longer.
Convert your existing requirements into an RFP like document. Create
a contest (yup! a context) that is judged at Ix09 (of course now it
is too late, but then it wasn't). The winner of the context by a
group of peers gets Platinum Sponsorship for free at Ix10 and their
design (they gotta provide the documentation at least for how to do
what they design, not just show pretty pictures) will be chosen by
the board, converted yet again into a RFP to do fundraising against,
or just find a vendor right away. OR and this is the yummy part.
Enter the new requirements into an OSS project where developers can
sink their teeth into probably one of the most amazing collaboration
software problems we have seen this/next decade.

Alternatively, I have also been talking with Aza Raskin at Mozilla
about how we can create an open source project under the Labs banner,
whose mission is to drive design into the OSS product development
process. By having what you've done as a kick off, and using
standard controls and freedoms inherent in the OSS movement we can
move forward, and do so with higher efficiencies.

Few clarifications: "design by committee" to me in this context (no
offense) feels like "socialism" spouted by Sarah Palin. It is a
scare tactic that really doesn't have any basis in reality, b/c OSS
and even crowdsourcing is never "design by committee". Decisions
are centralized, while ideation is de-centralized, and transparency
is optimized to keep fresh ideas flowing.

The other HUGE advantage of OSS is that you enable splinter groups to
work on tangents independent from the core, that even get released
outside the core release cycle to be honed in that context and easily
be added to the core later (ala Google Labs on Gmail, or Greasemonkey,
etc.)

I appreciate the board's new sense of urgency, and as you know Liz,
I'm an insider here, not an outsider, I know how hard the job is,
but feel strongly that our differentiation as a community of practice
from the grassroots perspective is only as innovative as the speed in
which we keep innovating and growing against it.

Key issues in our organization's future hinge on moving the virtual
tools of this community forward while at the same time maintaining
the high quality we have earned the expectation of from our community
regarding the conference.

In essence the board now has 2 organizations to run, not just one,
even though they are so tightly entwined.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

2 Nov 2008 - 1:52am
Nasir Barday
2006

Yikes, acrimony and emotions running high in this thread.

In talking about the challenges with this method, I wasn't clear about my
thoughts on the rest of the picture:
- We have a set of requirements that is fairly unique to a Community of
Practice
- Packages exist that can cover *most* of our wish list
- People in our community are willing to dream up and build solutions to
emerging challenges to our infrastructure
- Yes, we need a system "YESTERDAY"!

To build our system, we could go completely crowdsourced/OSS, which will
extend our timeline a lot (working on volunteer time, a central person
picking the 'right' ideas, etc), or we can get our core wish list designed
and built on a much quicker timeline by writing a check, and the rest can be
built with a combination of crowdsourcing, OSS, and paid development.

This quickly gets us a system ready to move into, providing locals the space
they need. As the needs arise (e.g. a great new idea for handling
discussion) the community can design and build them in sandboxes. But first
we need our core infrastructure built quickly. We're baking in, as a central
requirement, an easy way to allow members of our community to step up and
try bolting on new innovations via an API or a self-documented codebase
(preferably BOTH).

This is all a thought experiment until we have something to build onto ...

As Liz mentioned, an RFP is in the works. Let's not jump to a conclusion
that this thing is going to take $100k to build. Maybe $80k of it has
already been built and all that's left to build is the balance? Whatever!
All of these numbers are bunny-fluff until we get some cold, hard proposals
for solutions and their costs in our grubby hands. Heck, maybe this whole
concept is infeasible financially and the solution is to build from scratch
after all, but let's see what comes out of the RFP. Maybe I'm
being Pollyanna here, but I'm betting on a pleasant surprise. Either way,
we're getting an answer quick!

- Nasir

2 Nov 2008 - 9:04am
Damon Dimmick
2008

Wow. Way to sneak political bias into an IxDA discussion. I'm sure all
of those pitch fork wielding peasants at the Palin rallies would totally
agree with this point. Although I'm not a big Palin fan myself, I highly
doubt that Palin supporters think of themselves as mobs and of Obama
supporters as tribes.
> Mobs and
> crows don't have any of those things which is why their behavior is
> unpredictable and their dynamics chaotic. Think about the difference between
> an Obama rally (a tribe), and a Palin rally (a mob) -

3 Nov 2008 - 6:57pm
usabilitymedic
2008

Here here!

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 1, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Elizabeth Bacon <lists at elizabethbacon.com>
wrote:

> Dear heavens.
>
> OK, guys, if we're going to "out" ourselves...I will reveal that I
> fundamentally don't believe a crowdsourcing model for DESIGN is even
> possible, much less advisable.
>
> I believe that crowdsourcing can be helpful to garner ideas (e.g.
> that wepc thing at the top of this thread), identify requirements or
> brainstorm features (e.g. as Will did on the list the other day),
> and settle on shared definitions (e.g. wikipedia).
>
> To me, however, crowdsourcing seems utterly antithetical to the act
> of designing. Design involves acts of conscious intention coupled
> with creative insight to bring coherence and order to a system. I
> strongly believe that design projects must have a strong lead to
> succeed, both at the design helm and the project management helm.
> Nowhere in the modern world can I think of any example of a group-
> mind, a crowd, moving towards greater systemic coherence and order
> without a strong individual or individuals at the helm guiding the
> crowd's thoughts and intentions.
>
> Now in case you think I'm some "genius design" practitioner, bear in
> mind that my core IxD practices were forged at Cooper, a design
> consultancy that pioneered the use of personas and two-person teams
> to achieve design solutions. I am highly team-oriented, take pains
> to remove ego yet retain ingenuity in the design process, and
> believe that IxD benefits greatly from collaboration with other
> skilled practitioners as well as across disciplines.
>
> That said, working on design problems and delivering solutions as a
> small team is not crowdsourcing.
>
> Now, we may have a less radical disagreement here than I fear. Nasir
> wrote:
>
> "I like the idea of crowdsourcing the design of this puppy.
> Suggestions on how to manage the process? Two challenges I see:
> # Of all projects with a self-referential design element, this one
> kinda takes the cake :-).
> # The temptation/risk of falling into a design-by-committee trap is
> high
> # Being designers, we could iterate and iterate until, like, the end
> of days
>
> If we went with a crowdsourced model for the design, I'd propose
> going with the curated-crowdsourcing that Mozilla adopts. They have
> a public free-for-all tree, but the features that make it into
> Firefox, etc. have been cherry-picked by an architect and integrated
> into the codebase."
>
> What Nasir is proposing is NOT crowdsourcing the IxD of the next-
> generation IxDA infrastructure, but crowdsourcing feature
> definitions and perhaps also brainstorming the way those features
> manifest in their form & behavior. And note that he also invokes the
> importance of having a lead designer to bring order to the system.
>
> But here's my HUGE concern if we were to pursue this route. I
> strongly believe that IxDA.org needs some serious new infrastructure
> YESTERDAY. Our local groups began exploding in March, right after
> our first conference, and we haven't done jack squat for them except
> open up Basecamp projects and talk about things. Local group
> websites are now being developed piecemeal -- and they're all quite
> wonderful, but totally disconnected from each other & IxDA Global.
> Our general membership has also increased radically this year, and
> there's extremely little visibility that anybody has into or across
> this deep, valuable pool of individuals except for a freaking
> Mailman query the list administrators can do of how many subscribers
> we have!
>
> Given that the board has already done requirements and feature
> definition over the last four months for the IxDA.org features that
> we want to deliver in very short order (namely again: 1) richer
> member profiles; 2) an event/calendar system; 3) local group micro-
> sites; 4) tools to help local group leaders) we'd be throwing
> ourselves back to the starting line. Furthermore, I'm quite sure
> that it would take a least a year from now for us to arrive at some
> group-mind agreement, much less achieve the *development and
> delivery* of whatever it is we conceived.
>
> Therefore, I'm highly averse to pursuing a crowdsourcing effort on
> these areas from a scheduling perspective.
>
> I want our organization to get serious about following through on
> its intentions by hiring professional development resources to meet
> our needs. Presently we are not closed to the option of purchasing a
> hosted solution, but are leaning towards an open-source CMS so that
> IxDA can really own the platform and give community members ways to
> further enhance the user experience. I aim to publish an RFP on
> these features in November, and we want to be able to launch
> solutions by the Interaction 09 conference. Can anyone seriously
> argue that these schedule targets are achievable if we were to
> pursue a crowdsourcing effort or seek pro-bono development support
> from within the open source community?
>
> Please understand that I am confident that crowdsourcing ideas,
> requirements and feature definitions from within this amazing
> community of ours could provide us with some extremely innovative
> and powerful design concepts. So, let me make a suggestion. Perhaps
> a more appropriate design target to harness the great grassroots
> energy starting to be exhibited here is around the next generation
> of our DISCUSSION features. At the IxDA board retreat, the board
> identified this important area as nevertheless secondary to serving
> the local group and membership-oriented needs listed above. The
> infrastructure team also has given far less attention thus far on to
> how to bring IxDA.org up to speed in this arena. This design space
> would also include providing better tools for members to dynamically
> share perspectives & information and self-generate resources for the
> betterment of the community.
>
> So how does that scope sound, Nasir, Dave, Will, al.? Please, do not
> derail our current effort.
>
> Writing in pure agony at envisioning near-term delays,
> yours truly,
> Liz
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Vice-President, IxDA / www.ixda.org
> CDO, Devise / www.devise.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

3 Nov 2008 - 9:11pm
Dave Malouf
2005

I want to take a moment to calm down and apologize.
I'm sorry to the community and to the board. I guess I had a bee in
my bonnet.

I'm glad that this discussion is going to push things into a more
transparent mode, but any transparency can only exist in a community
of trust and I apologize for breaking that trust, and contributing to
a poor and inappropriate level of discourse.

I'm sorry.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35123

Syndicate content Get the feed