http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/activities-resources-long-pages-tp35p41.html
créer des programmes subversifs comme GeoGratis et DLI. The Les
C'est les gars du secteur privé qui nous cause le plus de défis.
>On 11/26/05, Tracey P. Lauriault <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm! Not my intention! Geez! Did not know I was one of -you know- one of
>>those.....
>>
>>
>>
>hehe. you're not. i'm mostly taking direction from you. :-)
>
>
>
>>Is there a way to take away the officiousness & directedness but leave
>>in some hints in how to play! Particularly for people who do not know
>>how these things work! Like myself!
>>
>>
>
>yeah- that's a good point - the wiki should have something saying how
>to participate. I'll try to edit what you did into version 2 and you
>can respond to that.
>
>
>
>>Not attached to the word document.
>>
>>
>
>kay.
>
>
>>I guess there is a spectrum of people from different communities who
>>might have different expectations and we need to find that collective
>>sweet spot.
>>
>>
>>
>hmm. I always have problems with this mythical land of inclusion
>where everything is neutral and everyone is equally welcome (I'm not
>saying that you're suggesting such a place, tracey). I would say that
>there are already places for some of the people working in this area.
>And those people are mostly experts (as librarians, statisticians,
>bureaucrats, etc). I would like COACD to be less rarified place where
>I could hang out in my jeans and not be intimidated - but where
>people's expertise and experience is respected. Basically to tell the
>"experts" that we welcome their knowledge, but to check their ego's at
>the door.
>
>is that being too confrontational of me? I'm just really tired of
>being told that stuff is beyond me/us. And that message is as
>conveyed by "experts" in the community and non-profit sector as it is
>by the authorities.
>
>I think i need to go have some tea and chill out. I know that you're
>saying that it is so much better to have a place where geeks and youth
>can gain for the experience and knowledge of people already in the
>field. I think I would rather fail on the side of overly democratic
>and populist rather than expert and exclusive. But hopefully we don't
>have to fail and we can hit that sweet spot.
>
>mike
>
>
>
>>Michael Lenczner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 11/26/05, Tracey P. Lauriault <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bonjour gang!
>>>>
>>>>Bon faut jouer dehors dans la neige!
>>>>
>>>>Mais avant d'y aller, j'ai téléchargé (is that the word for
>>>>upload/post?) du nouveau matériel sur le wiki.
>>>>J'ai déveloper une section s'appelant activités
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have mixed feelings about that page. I thought about it for 20
>>>minutes and I don't think it's that I disagree with the content
>>>(although I don't think "documenting" is a good way to get people
>>>involved - but I may be wrong).
>>>
>>>What i don't like is the tone. It has this feel of "Citizens for open
>>>access" actually *being* something. Some kind of organization.
>>>Something larger than the sum of it's parts. It has a feeling of
>>>pretension - not arrogance - but of intimating that we are not just 4
>>>random people from different places across canada.
>>>
>>>I'm wary of that. I think that is our most valuable attribute, our
>>>strongest weapon. We're just 4 regular people from different areas of
>>>canada and different professions and we see this issue as important to
>>>us. Anything that obfuscates that - that lessens the impact of that
>>>point must be done with full awareness. This is why I want the wiki
>>>to stay a little thin, and a little rough. If it is too polished, we
>>>are implicityly saying that we only have permission to attempt this
>>>kind of initiative if we are good enough - smart enough, have enough
>>>expertise, enough education. That's exactly the point of view that
>>>we're trying to tear down. You don't need to be someone in a three
>>>piece suit to have an interest in or an ability to look at this
>>>data/information. you can be anyone. And I think the wiki and the
>>>mailing list and our language should reflect that. That means
>>>resisting the impulse to overly coordinate, make too many backup
>>>references / footnotes to arguements, use professional language, etc.
>>>We have to dumb things down - not because the four of us aren't smart
>>>enough to handle them - but because these things (jargon - but also
>>>polish, "professionalism", and even perfection are walls to keep
>>>regular people out.
>>>
>>>And the other thing I don't like about the activities page is that it
>>>implies a direction to COACD. To me this is not a direction. this is
>>>a meeting place. There is a huge difference between a bandwagon going
>>>somewhere and a crossroads where people can find each other, share
>>>some stories, and shoot the shit (all around a special interest, mind
>>>you).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>, je suggère que l'on
>>>>change navigation à resources,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>i kept navigation but i created another page called Resources and I
>>>moved the provinces + cities over to there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>et je cherche le camel case pour
>>>>Participants!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>to link to participants use ["Participants"]
>>>
>>>Thats what you do when something isn't CamelCase but it's on the top level.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stéphane, je m'excuse que je pense plus en anglais qu'en francais quand
>>>>j'écris! Mauvaise habitude pour le moment! De même, une fois que nous
>>>>serions d'accord du matériel téléchargé dans le wiki ce serait le fun
>>>>qu'on travaille ensemble pour traduire. Je pense que les pages seront
>>>>très longues, donc peut-etre nous devrions créer un tableau pour diviser
>>>>les pages en deux sur la verticale? Qu'en pensez-vous?
>>>>
>>>>ciao les amis! il faut maintenant aller complétez le niveau de l'arsenal
>>>>de mes boulles de neige!
>>>>Tracey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>>
[hidden email]
>>>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>>
[hidden email]
>>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>>
[hidden email]
>>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>
>
>
>