[Koha-devel] Survey Reminder

[Nicole Engard]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM, MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> (User list dropped from circulation because these seem like development
> problems.)
>
> Nicole Engard <nengard at gmail.com> wrote: [...]
>> #2 this survey asks for more than just what you want out of the
>> foundation - it asks about the groups we discussed during the meeting
>
> Yes, that bit's fine, thank you.  But how shall we merge the two sets
> of "what you want out of the association/foundation" answers?

By two sets do you mean Doodle and this survey? or the first and
second survey I'm writing?  I have no clue on either - like I say
below, I didn't think we needed these questions in the first survey -
but added them after consulting with others - basically, we can ignore
the first set of answers we get from my survey and then when I improve
the problems we're having (for which I have a lot of great tips) we
can just use the answers we gather in the second survey.  I can make
it so that this first question isn't required so that those who answer
after today don't have to fill it in ...

>
>> #3 I actually thought the survey was only going to be #2 :) hehe
>
> I don't understand that.

I thought that this survey was only going to ask what foundation we
wanted use - not what we wanted out of the foundation - basically I
was under the impression that our chat had confirmed that we were
going to bring Koha into an existing org/assoc/foundation - and then
move forward from there.  I consulted others while writing the survey
and that's where all of the other questions came from.

>
>> #4 the first poll was just asking what we thought the foundation
>> should do - not asking us to rank our options - someone expressed that
>> concern on the chat and I too worried about that - Just because
>> everyone wanted one option doesn't mean it was their first choice for
>> what the foundation should do
>
> The first poll was just a first poll.  I didn't find "ranking" in the
> chat transcript, so I suspect I didn't see that concern to address it.
> (Please could people make sure they develop this organisation in
> public?)  A second poll could be more detailed, but I'm unsure how we
> decide what to put in it now.

I need to re-read the chat - ranking wasn't mentioned - but someone
asked how we'd know what people thought was the most important option
- it was in public, I'm sure about it (maybe it was on the mailing
list - either way I read it somewhere).  I'm sorry for making this
more difficult than it needs - I've obviously made some mistakes here
and am willing to take any and all suggestions to improve upon it so
that we get the right kind of input we want (and get this
foundation/org/assoc off the ground).

>
>> As I've said to others I will improve upon this survey for the second
>> go round - I made a few mistakes this first time as I was learning how
>> to to use the software more efficiently.  Also, this is a survey - not
>> a poll - so it gives us some analytics that we couldn't get from the
>> Doodle poll - something you should like :)
>
> I think we could overanalyse the preliminary poll.  As long as no-one
> is ballot-stuffing (which we should spot pretty easily in our fairly
> small population), then speed of brainstorm felt more important than
> bulletproof analytics.  Two weeks for the new poll means the
> discussion period must be longer than that.  I fear that life is too
> unpredictable and we have waited too long already to be able to carry
> people on a multimonth decision process, while the challenges to this
> community are more immediate.

I'm with you on this - I have to admit I was rushing through creating
it because I was out of town and late in getting the survey out.  Do
we have a next meeting scheduled yet? I will gladly put together an
improved survey with a deadline of that meeting so that we can make
our final decision then.  I agree that a bit of a mess has been made
here - and I'm up for fixing it in any way.

>
> Regards,
> --
> MJ Ray (slef)  LMS developer and webmaster at     | software
> www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
> IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
>