Roadmap

[Professor420]

As I see it, we have the following tasks ahead of us:

1. First, we must figure out a list of topics to be discussed. The "background" thread gives an initial list, but this must be fleshed out alot, and added to.

2. Second, we need to devise a list of possible ways that speakers can present these topics, and make sure we have the infrastructure available. For example, if we decide voice-conference is a good idea, we must make sure that is available.

3. Third, we need to draw up a list of speakers we would like.

4. Devise what would be the best date/length of time to have the Symposium. This would be rough, only, to give the speakers some span to work with.

All four of these things can be done concurrently. Once those are nearing completion, the following must be done one after the other:

5. Send out invitations to the list of speakers. Request topics they would like, how they would like to present the topic, and date they would like.

6. Send out invitations to the symposium attendees (send invites to all hosted mod leaders for who they would like to bring with them?). The invitation would include a list of speakers and dates.

7. Receive confirmations of the invitations, so we can gauge interest in specific seminars, and possibly remove or reassign/combine those that have little or no interest.

8. Create the actual forums/infrastructure for the Symposium when it approaches, set permissions, etc.

9. Enjoy the fruits of our labours during the Symposium.

10. Finally, work to assemble all of the work produced for the Symposium into a distributable and easy to navigate format.

I may be missing something, or this may not be optimal, but I'd like to hear suggestions or alternatives.

[Erich von Manstein]

First things first, perhaps we should give ourselves a time table and a deadline. I've found those work well in real life group projects. Otherwise, your list looks good.

[The Walrus]

Looks good and I agree with Manstein.

[makanyane]

EDIT: DIY moderation, comments on infrastructure moved here.

[Erich von Manstein]

I have the same worries about voice conferencing. For one, not every individual is equipped with the necessary software/hardware for it. Also, I know that it is quite a bit more difficult to understand a non-native language when it is spoken rather than written.

And yes, this discussion should probably be split off.

[makanyane]

I've split off infrastructure topic I started waffling about and created new one for symposium topics.

One thing that I think is on-topic for this thread is we need to gauge where in Professor420's list we would be considered to have made 'a decision'. To comply with the curial committees requirement:

After a Decision is made by a temporary committee, it shall be posted in the Prothalamos for three days, prior to implementation. If three or more Patricians state an objection, implementation will be postponed.......

I'm voting for somewhere around point 5 ish. I think we need to have informally, (as individuals rather than committee if that distinction can be made) canvassed for some possible speakers - so we know we're likely to get enough support on that front - before we present decision in Prothalamos. Assuming that doesn't get shot down we can then proceed with the more formal invites - getting infrastructure set up etc. Any thoughts?

[Publius]

I agree, I'd say around point 4-5 so that we have a good outline of where we intend to go, but have not yet committed the resources to completing it as of that time in the off chance it gets rejected by the Curia.

[makanyane]

Bump, added new thread on possible wording of preliminary invitation:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...74#post1578574
any thoughts on that and if we are getting close to point of being able to send preliminary informal invites to gauge level of support? :hmmm:

[Publius]

...are getting close to point of being able to send preliminary informal invites to gauge level of support? :hmmm:

If everyone reaches a concensus on this then I dare say we should - we need to leave people a certain grace period in order to reply, so I think we should send these out relatively soon.

A pretty good write up as well Mak, I think it will do nicely.

[Publius]

Ok guys, where are we at? Do we have enough to move forward, and if not, how do we get there?

[makanyane]

Have inverted the invitee responses so we can see who we have per section. with which choice of theirs it was after name:

• Methods of team coordination: Kagemusha 1st Dragenses 1st Agraes 2nd Monkwarrior 2nd
• Recruitment: Agraes 1st
• Handling Deadlines
• Optimal team sizes and responsibilities: Prof420 1st Monkwarrior 1st dragenses 2nd Kagemusha 2nd
• Incentives/punishments: Zhuge Liang 1st
• Software handling: Prof420 2nd
• Beta testing: Lusted 2nd Agraes 2nd
• Team Mutiny: Zhuge Liang 2nd
• Handling Public Relations: Lusted 1st
• Setting up team forums and/or website:
• Intermod coordination:

Drak10687 had variety of topics but I wasn’t sure from comment if he wanted to be main speaker so didn’t list as yet..

so we have speakers on most subjects though a couple are on 2nd choice only. The topics on Optimal Team Size and Team Co-ordination are clearly more popular so should definitely be proceeded with I think regardless of what we decide to do on the rest. I haven't cross checked that with times / methods at all yet but think there is enough to start to move on.

I'm assuming you guys have posted all responses you have so far - so we seem to have a few 'no comments' or not-on-lines as yet?

[Professor420]

I'm going to spend some time on this around 5pm tommorrow, creating a letter to send to the affirmative respondses and finalize everything. I've been busy this week, especially as I haven't gone to class (which gives me much time to kill).

[Publius]

so we seem to have a few 'no comments' or not-on-lines as yet?

Quite a few, yes.

@Prof - sounds good.