Peter, (01)
it was the first time I attended the summit as it coincided with other
events in the region, I dont expect it to happen regulary and really
enjoyed meeting you all the great opportunity (02)
Ontolog has been one of the key mailing lists, which has opened up a
lot of conceptual spaces and important connections, so being in the
same room with others was magic for me (03)
Every community faces challenges, its difficult to know when to let it
grow, or when to steer it, how much to hold or let go of the reins
etc, When we open things up too much for people to chose from, things
dont happen, and when we make choices, we inevitably get things wrong
The fact is, that we simply can't win easily at the community game. (04)
I really think that you and Leo deserve a big thanks for making it
happen, despite the rough edges (05)
I read in the comments posted on the links below, that many issues
have already been raised, such as process improvement and more
effective management of the breakout session,ks more effecient
communication (shorter) etc (06)
Below some brief points from me (07)
what worked well
--------------------------
meeting everybody around a table with ontology at heart, and
different views of what is important,
and how things should be done - this is a good start for whatever is
that will come out of it (08)
what could be done better
-------------------------------------------- (09)
re. summit processes
1.Not being able to make the calls, due to time/space constraints, I
feel it is important that participants are given the opportunity to
contribute remotely, that includes via mailing lists, which is what
works best for some of us. Virtual environments allow for this to
happen, when set up properly. For me, this means: irrespective of
how/when people contribute to a discussion, the contribution shoud be
taken into account, and not forgotten (scripta manent) (010)
2. each one of the statements that the summit is trying to make, in
essence the points contained in the summit, should be 'debated' via a
thread (to which people can contribute or not,depending on whether
they have somethig to say) as well as via phone calls. The threads can
then be summarised into brief statements for approval. (011)
3. As much as I enjoyed meeting all the great new people whom I never
had the pleasure of exchanging on list before, I think the 'champions'
are the people who contribute to the community regularly. Its
difficult for me to accept as a champion someone who has rarely
contributed to the online discourse, I would probably see the
newcomers more as 'special guests' perhaps (012)
4. the open process must be inclusive, that mans that people should be
able to contribute to any given part of the discourse in their own
time, and using the collaborative means of their choice
(Contributions constitute part of the discourse ireespective of
when/where/how they are made)
Setting a time for a call 10 am on a given day by phone automatically
excludes from participation all the ones who cannot take part in the
call. Assume we had Stephen Hawkings or the Dalai Lama among our
participants, they would not have the chance to make a contribution
that easily, while maybe he could write an essay or a post or could
interact via chat (013)
5. for me a great value of this forum is the ability to exchange
with peers about the things I am working on, I surprised myself having
met with Ravi and Alexander, and MIchelle and and not having had the
time/space to talk about the things we had exchanged on list
/elsewhere about (which I had totally forgotten about) which we are
already working on. So maybe the opportunity for people to socialise
more, or even organise informal minisessions to discuss what it
important to participants
One formula that is catching on is 'speed talks', or miniposter
sessions, where people present one or two slides about their work, and
participants can then hook up with them while grabbing a drink and
chat to them about the funding opportunities etc. :-) (014)
Its nice when people come and say 'we would love to work with you on this' (015)
re. OOR - I think some question have really not been tackled/answered.
Not at the summit, not on the list. For example, we raised it on the
list, how useful is having open repositories, if we dont
have open ontologies (and all the discussions that need to take place
about that).
Another issue : distributed or centralized repository? I dont think
enough discussion went to address that point, and how 'centralised'
conflicts with the 'linked data' mode; and certainly I dont remember
the conclusion being
exhaustive (unless I missed something, in which case pleaseforgive). A
few other things, from definitions, to metadata, to architectures,
would need more in depth analysis and workout before they can make
sense to me.
So I would personally see the need for each OOR point to be
rediscussed and brainstormed via mailing list, as well as via the
usual phone calls that you ahve already established. (016)
RE. ontolog/summit governance
Not sure who is making all the decisions and how. As a member of the
Ontolog community, and would like to contribute to decision making,
just not sure how to do that
Can collaborative decision making be set up in some way? Finally, I
think Peter and Leo's 'leadership' can be a hard act to follow, will
always be Ontolog fathers, and I do not expect the same level of
commitment from others, but I wonder, should the conveners and
committee memebers be elected by the commmunity on a rotation basis?
Or are we stuck with whoever god has sent us so far? :-) (017)
I probably have a few more points to add, but time is out for today,
thanks for the opportunity to comment - will post this note on the
wiki (018)
Paola Di Maio (019)
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
> Look like we don't have quorum ... therefore, the planned "debriefing"
> conference call for today is now canceled ... and, as suggested in the
> last message, we'll just follow-up on what transpired from Ontology
> Summit 2008 through our regular e-mail forum.
>
> For those who are interested, here are links to the debriefings already done:
>
> (a) by the OOR-team -
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_05_09#nid1H7W
>
> &
>
> (b) by the Ontology Summit 2008 organizing committee -
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008/OrganizingCommitteeMeeting_2008_05_12#nid1HKK
>
> In particular, ref. (b) above, Barry Smith has already put in a great
> idea for the theme of OntologySummit2009. We can mull over this, and
> possibly other ideas, between now and the end of the year. Around that
> time, I shall look forward to a new initiative from NIST, NCOR,
> Ontolog (possibly other organizers too) to bring next year's Summit to
> life!
>
> (020)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (021)
|