FUNREDES Position Paper: The Annexes
A document has been written by Funredes about information and communication recommended methodology for the Caribcad project. The first version was put on the private part of the associated Website on January 30; the document can still be found at the same URL: http://funredes.org/caribcad/private/method/methodoc.html
The partners were invited to comment on the document, to express their disagreements if any, etc. Funredes has not received any feedback, and then had to consider that everyone had agreed on the statements made in the document. In the daily practice though, too many recommendations and tips are not followed (and Funredes does not perceive its role as a methodology police staff!). We would like to quickly identify the most striking ones in this annex.
- Feedback. The need for feedback has been stressed out, but it is not often seen within the project. The methodology document itself, e.g., has never been subject to any feedback. Some direct questions and requirements (data for a directory, pictures for a portrait gallery, etc.) have never been answered by some of the partners.
- "When you answer, take each question one by one, etc.". Funredes had thought that the examples given after this piece of recommendation, as well as the fact most mailers quote the original message, would encourage people to clearly refer to the parts of the message they reply to, one by one. This is not the case, and it may be a weakness of the methodology document to have not been normative enough on this point. This will be corrected before the end of June.
- "When you are the receiver: [...] check if you are the main receiver, or put in copy FYI only". To follow this tip would help to avoid statements such as "when I see a mail from this list it is assumed to be irrelevant". A message is of less direct interest if you are (personally or as a list member) put in CC or BCC, but it needs your attention if you (personally or as a list member) belong to the TO field.
- "Beware the size of transferred documents." Too often, this has not been paid enough attention.
- "Please do not use HTML tags." It cannot be processed by listservs. Yet some people still write their messages using HTML.
- "Do not openly advertise for a commercial product". Funredes has already had to erase, in an HTML document provided by another partner, a direct and unique link to a specific browser.
- "All the Web documents need to mention a certain amount of information": date of creation, of latest modification, author, etc. The suggested model (URL indicated in the methodology document) has never been followed, and the required data have never been all mentioned in the documents put on the Web by partners who are not Funredes.
- It has also been said and repeated that any significant absence should be announced (not necessarily when the person can read his/her mail while being far away from the office: if there is no impact on communication, the location does not matter), as well as connectivity or any computer problems. This is seldom done by some partners.
- Not all the project leaders keep communicating while traveling, and this situation brings unacceptable delay in the global communication flow.
Back to the Table of Annexes
The minutes of the Newcastle meeting have not been written as a synthesis, as it was the case in previous meetings: usually (at M2 and M3), rough notes were collected during the meeting, then an articulated synthesis, made by the partner hosting the meeting and revised by some colleagues (e.g. people from the steering committee) was released. In order to allow remote contributions, notes have been taken directly on a computer, then sent to everybody at the end of the meeting. From the Funredes' point of view, these notes were very useful, but they contain some mistakes, or some errors of perspective. Although they are minor mistakes, all together they convey the wrong message about the position of Funredes. We would like to point them out, since they do not reflect our positions and may then misguide the reader. Hereafter are the statements alleged to our representative in Newcastle with which we do not agree:
- "Expressed a need for FUNREDES to collaborate with DK & UNINEW on tools." There is a need to have a close cooperation between UNINEW and FUNREDES on tools, software, etc. The relation with DK is slightly different: they expressed the desire to be provided with a tool which would allow them to have their messages directly put on everybody's desktop.
- "Internal personnel problems (of FUNREDES) effecting the maintenance of the lists & the website." The reality is different: FUNREDES made it clear at M4, after having pointed it out in the monthly reports, that it suffers from a lack of personnel, because: a) the part time cooperant finished his contract on March the 31st, as scheduled, b) the student who had been found by FUNREDES had to leave unexpectedly the Dominican Republic early March, and c) the North partners have not found an exchange student yet (as planned at M3 in November, and as a condition given of the off the record by Funredes to join the team). Nevertheless, the Website is still operational (actually, it was released in December and has been maintained since then by C. Dhaussy); as far as the lists are concerned, the actions we would need to perform may be a little bit delayed (3 days instead of 3 hours!), but the service is still provided, and has been provided since late March without any problem, and no service interruption so far.
- "Acknowledged problem with the list servs. Open to suggestions & redefine list membership." The problem comes from the fact people do not use the listservs as they should, not from the listservs themselves. The definition of the list membership was a typical case of communication problems: when the lists were opened, FUNREDES asked everybody to express his/her wishes regarding the participation to the lists. Less than 10 answers were gathered. Then we followed a suggestion that had been expressed during M3, to subscribe everybody to each list. Now, the lists exist, but they are not active, or contain irrelevant messages (especially in CC-FC). We do not believe that people can be proactive if they are enrolled in a couple of given lists: at least, everybody should express his/her needs, duties and desires, in order FUNREDES to subscribe the right persons to the right lists� although we consider that advanced users should be able to subscribe themselves directly with no external support.
- "The lists seem impersonal - when they see a mail from this list it is assumed to be irrelevant." This was not said by FUNREDES, but by another partner during the session. The fact it is presented as being part of the positions defended by FUNREDES is totally misleading.
- "Action (by FUNREDES, delivery ASAP): 'allow members to unsubscribe from lists they no longer wish to receive mail from'." It is always possible to unsubscribe oneself. C. Dhaussy was not sure, in the case of a close subscription, that anybody could do it personally. But the action to be made was more like "check out that it is possible". Let us note that the people who expressed their wish to be able to unsubscribe from the lists had never tried to do so in the past six months; if they had tried so, they would have succeeded.
Back to the body of this document
Back to the methodology page
Back to the CARIBCAD homepage
Creation: June 12, 1998
Latest modification: June 12, 1998
Author: CD-DP (FUNREDES)
© 1997-98