SE5 Forum committee meetings and other meetings

[pros]

I may be repeating myself and/or stating the obvious, but having read the recent committee meeting minutes, and especially having read some of the recent comments, it seems that some of us feel like it is the committee who is meant to be 'leading' any actions or initiatives, and not the members.

I feel that it might be a good idea to have an SE5 forum members' meeting, facilitated/organised by the committee, where those interested would get a chance to share their ideas/get support and feedback etc.

People are doing things outside of internets, either inspired by thoughts/concerns expressed here, or unrelated - I'm organising the first Southwark Freecycle event in July, which will become a regular occurrence, a group is working on reduction/ban of plastic bags in the borough, to give you but a few examples.

It's in our hands. And it's clear that most of the people on the forum want to make Camberwell a nicer place to live and work in. So let's do it!

[Regeneguru]

pros - I agree that the Board should concentrate more on engaging with members on a weekly basis, with intermittent updates as to their activities and suggested ways in which members could get involved or assist.

Your suggestion of member meetings is a good one - only one or two Board members need be present for it to work.  However, more efficient means of communication, such as teleconferencing, should be examined because in reality the travel time to these community meetings is too much for most to commit.

I highly recommend to all members attendance at the next Board meeting as observers - obviously there is the chance to speak to Board members either side of the meeting times.  For those concerned with scrutinising financial spend, there is about to be committed a sum of between £5,000 to £9,000 on an upgrade of this website.  My own view is that the Board is not ready for such a significant spend, because there is no "web culture" yet.  By this I mean regularly communication and reporting between meetings which could be used to keep the site topical and relevant.  There is also, as yet, no marketing strategy for the site.  This does not mean that it will not work; just that it might take longer to get off the ground properly.

Ultimately, the new site will be designed to be member-led and populated with information from the grass roots.  I encourage all who take an interest in how this will be done to attend and offer their input, or indeed any other ideas in how we can improve Camberwell, or safeguard aspects of it that are in danger of disappearance forever.

[ferguskane]

£5-7K!!  Are they serious?   What's gonna happen to it... gold plating?  From my limited time on the site, there appear to be nowhere near enough regular users to justify this.  As you've indicated, the forum might do better trying to promote itself in the real world before spending such money.

That's definitley an issue to put to the website members and NOT decided by commitee alone.  Clearly there would have to be a consensus on what needs changing.  A volunteer to look after the website (as per minutes) would be a good first step, perhaps the volunteer will be able to do at least some of what the prospective companies would charge for?

[Mr Bojangles]

There is a web culture.  This site suffers because it is dominated by one person and his agenda. If anyone challenges that agenda, the old "I haven't seen you at committee meetings" line gets trotted out.  That is not the way to encourage community participation in a community based website.  That just discourages people from posting again / using the site.

The marketing strategy isn't rocket science and does not need to be expensive.

The website should be the vehicle for attracting users and encouraging participation at various levels.  In its current guise, it doesn't foster any community spirit.

[Regeneguru]

Mr Bojangles

To clarify - my comment was that there is no web culture amongst the SE5 Forum Board currently.  If you disagree with this, I'd be interested to know on what basis.

Everyone has an agenda.  Mine is simple - to encourage the improvement of quality of public space and shared community space such as shops and leisure facilities, in Camberwell. 

I could argue that the concentration of project work in and to the south of the Green, in circumstances where grant moneys are delivered on the basis of deprived, crime-ridden, infrastructureless and amenity-poor regions to the north of the Green, is also part of a wider agenda rejecting localism outside a bus commute.  But everyone is free to speak their mind here, and I highly doubt that anyone is intimidated from posting here because of me, as you seem to imply.

Most of my Forum efforts are directed towards obtaining information from Board members on their activities, finding a way to publish this (done - see the Board structure on the main page menu), and encouraging communication between the Board and its members.

It is reasonable to request attendance at Board meetings rather than criticising through the medium of this site, which the majority of the Board does not read.  I once more suggest that you attend tomorrow.  The structure of the website will be finalised at this meeting, if it has not been already.  And no-one should permit themselves the luxury of criticising the way the new site works if they have had opportunity to review it, but did not take it.

All ideas on how to encourage participation, and on reporting regularity of Board activities through the site, are encouraged.

[Peter Gasston]

The website should be the vehicle for attracting users and encouraging participation at various levels.  In its current guise, it doesn't foster any community spirit.

It's not the site which fosters community spirit, but the users of it. The Catch 22 is that users won't get involved unless there's seen to be plenty of activity, but there won't be activity until users get involved.

[Greenenvy]

You are wrong. Dozens, even hundreds of people have tried for nearly 4 years t 'be involved'. A failure of leadership has left far too many convinced it's not worth any more of our time and concerned a group is now spending loads of our money (guess where grants come from) on a failed enterprise.

[Peter Gasston]

Greenenvy: Perhaps you could give the benefit of your many years experience of organising successful community initiatives to the wastrels and layabouts on the SE5Forum committee.

That was intended to be lighthearted but doubtless will not be interpreted as so, so just to get my rebuttals in early: I'm not now - and have never been - part of the committee, and neither do I think it has been some kind of outstanding success; on the contrary, I've stated repeatedly that the lack of communication from the committee has been their biggest failing to date. I like to think that what I offer, however, is constructive criticism and not aimless griping.

Re: the earlier comment:

£5-7K!!  Are they serious?   What's gonna happen to it... gold plating?

Speaking as a web professional, I can tell you that £5-7k is peanuts to spend on a website. Don't be misled by the flyers on lampposts outside tube stations that offer a website for £100; an average mid-sized website built by an agency who know what they're doing will set you back 5 figures easily.

[Greenenvy]

Your temper is well known so I'll simply say the forum violates its on principles of transparency with public funds and is now spending quite a lot of them with a por track record spanning many years.

[Regeneguru]

I would agree with Peter that £5-7k is not excessive for a full-functional website.  My concern is that most Board members could not give you reasons for the upgrade, such as what the new site would provide which the current site does not.

The main thing which characterises a truly professional site such as www.bbc.co.uk is of course its topicality - the enormous research and journalistic resources which support it.  It is this latter aspect which is currently missing from Forum website plans - resources which exist amply on a voluntary basis within Camberwell - , and which threatens to turn the new site into a white elephant, which is not used effectively on a periodic basis. 

I believe that it is essential that a reporting culture, and one of thirst for interaction and involvement with the wider membership, is developed as soon as possible to avoid white elephant syndrome.

[Mr Bojangles]

But users won't get involved unless you create the right environment. 

Comments like:

"It is reasonable to request attendance at Board meetings rather than criticising through the medium of this site"

are not helpful.  Basically, what you are saying is that you have no right to comment unless you turn up to Board meetings.  How is that supposed to encourage user participation which was the point I made in my earlier post.  One of the main purposes of having community focussed website forum is to reach out to people who may not necessarily attend Board meetings (for whatever reason) but who want to participate on some level.  This could be the occasional post through to full participation in the Board meetings.  It allows people to participate at different levels.  From my experience, I've attended local meetings / commented on public consultations which I've found out about through postings on this site.  But just because I don't attend Board meetings, does that mean that I'm not allowed to comment or "criticise through the medium of this site".  If that's the case and is the basis on which the global moderator runs the site, then it is not surprising as to the lack of users.  And kind of defeats the purpose of having the web forum.

As to the direction of the site, it should be following more of a web 2.0 model and relying more on user generated content.  That is more likely to engage with users and generate more of a community.  The BBC analogy is clearly inappropriate. 

[Peter Gasston]

Basically, what you are saying is that you have no right to comment unless you turn up to Board meetings.

Well the idea is that issues get debated here and people get interested/annoyed/motivated/curious enough to eventually want to go along and support in person. I definitely don't think that not attending a meeting invalidates your opinion, but if your opinion is strong enough then it's probably worth making to the committee in person.

As to the direction of the site, it should be following more of a web 2.0 model and relying more on user generated content.

Eventually, yes. But I think to begin with it would be nice if the committee provided a more top-down approach to kick things off - or at least got involved.

Also, one of the problems (challenges?) of user-generated content is that it needs to be moderated, and if the community is not large enough to moderate itself then it needs an admin to do so. At the moment there is no admin.

[ferguskane]

Ok, back after a long time away.

5-7K is not a lot for a website.  Well it depends on what it does, and who it does it for.  Currently relatively few people use this website.   As noted already - before the committee spends its 5-7k can it kindly let us members know what the aims and objectives of the 5-7k are.  This MUST come before a contract.  5-7k is as easy to waste as it is to spend.

Again, has anyone tried to engage a student to take on the project as part of a MSc/PhD or such like?  There are plenty of people who design pretty good websites as a hobby or as a volunteer.  Perhaps the forum could put out a tender for volunteers!?  However, again, this requires aims and objectives.

Could someone put together a list of the number of people who have put more than 10 posts on this site?  We'll divide £5000 by that number and work out how much it comes to.  Just an exercise for fun!

[Peter Gasston]

5-7K is not a lot for a website... As noted already - before the committee spends its 5-7k can it kindly let us members know what the aims and objectives of the 5-7k are.  This MUST come before a contract.  5-7k is as easy to waste as it is to spend.

Agree with you there. IMHO the site doesn't need a fortune spent on it, it needs some kind of direction and communication from the Forum themselves; that's worth a lot more than any Web 2.0 User Generated Content bollocks. The Forum did not even mention here the fact that they were involved in organising the Olympics handover on the Green; a big PR own-goal. £5-7k would be better spent on someone working one day a week generating content, leading debate, and moderating the boards.

Currently relatively few people use this website.

Could someone put together a list of the number of people who have put more than 10 posts on this site?  We'll divide £5000 by that number and work out how much it comes to.

Don't confuse the number who post regularly with the number who use regularly; the majority of visitors read, but don't comment. That's not a criticism of this site, it's a general trend in web use:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

[ferguskane]

"Don't confuse the number who post regularly with the number who use regularly; the majority of visitors read, but don't comment. That's not a criticism of this site, it's a general trend in web use"  (how do you do the box thing?)

Yes, good point.  I've just found out how to look up basic statistics.  Including this one:

     Most Online:     302 [seperate users I assume?] - 09 July, 2008, 04:05 

Which is pretty astounding