Barriers and enablers in the health of shared resources
Revision as of 19:00, 22 November 2016 by Willowbl00 (talk | contribs)
How to sustain community contributions to resources (documentation, curricula etc.)
ENABLERS
- champions entry points at different levels of experience
- examples and tutorials
- resources and stories
- translations contributed via github
- collective iteration / updatable
- trust/power building
- common standard - word
- shared experience
- open license
- creative commons
- feedback form on each page
- archived materials
- agreed formats
- outline/resource
- agreed forms (outline, resource)
- co-create and develop leaders
- innovative satisfaction of personal need
- 1-on-1s
- personal relationships
- enable people to continue conversation exchange thru discussion platform
- after online event
- enable learners to monitor eachothers’ classwork via google slides
- negotiation tactics
BARRIERS
- misaligned incentives
- staff/nonstaff divide
- fear uncertainty doubt
- content needs legal and technical review
- github and other technical public spaces
- only approved editors can submit edits
- vetting
- versioning
- convoluted technical processes
- conceptual buy-in vs. practices
- limited capacity to review translations
- too many tools unsure where to contribute what
- lack of clear narrow vision
- language localization
- education level
- languages and communication styles
- different centers of reference
- editing
- people unwilling to learn new tools; default to old tools
- formats offline/ online
Annotation tool: hypothesis
Is git a barrier or enabler?
BEST PRACTICES
- Shared purpose
- teams and tasks
- clear roles and responsibilities
- activation guides
- etherpad? good notetaking to capture decisions
- good leadership/mentors
- community manager: be clear what you’re asking people;
- directed asks
- gamification?
- Fabrication: task management. Award tokens to people
- Metrics;