Thanks Mark: great suggestion—and the video presents an excellent, well-structured, and highly distilled case for argument mapping and the Collaboratorium.
Assembling a collection of videos from the work across the group would give an immediate sense of the vibrancy and range of activity under way in the field, and emphasise just how much is possible in practice already.
My hunch is that the co-presence of the videos will tend to reinforce the individual messages as well.
One good initial topic for us, perhaps, is to discuss what kinds of pilots we should do, what the experimental hypotheses could be, what we would measure, etc.. For myself, I did a 200-user evaluation of the Collaboratorium last November in Naples, and have a 300-user test coming up in a couple weeks in Zurich, both with student users deliberating on how bio-fuels should be used in their country.
I suggested to Mark that he might offer a virtual session where he could report informally to us on the Naples experiment and any preliminary results from it, from an HC4D perspective ... and he agreed. Now it's a simple matter of scheduling it! :-)
As none of the suggested slots for the first conference call suited everyone in the group who has replied so far, I have broadened the days and time slots across the week 21-25 April -- and converted the times to UTC for the avoidance of any confusion across time zones.
Co-ordinating a conference call for the whole group across Australia, Europe, and East and West Coast USA, is an exacting challenge...
...and it looks as if pan-group participation may depend on a willingness to indulge in an unsociably late night call in Australia and an unsociably early morning call on the West Coast.
Rather than go through multiple iterations, my suggestion is that we plan to hold the first call in the week shown on the calendar (21-25 April), and pick the slot that has the highest participation once we have all added our availability. This way, everyone should only have to indicate their availability one (more) time.
If we are using Skype, and if everyone would be happy to do so, it might be possible to record the conversation and make it available for any group members who can't participate in the call.
If any one has any suggestions for improving on this approach, please don't hesitate to propose them.
Thanks for the message. I have re-circulated the schedule link to the group this morning, highlighting 15:00 and 16:00 UTC on 24 April as our currently preferred times/date -- and will confirm the date/time tomorrow after any further updates today.
Jeff Conklin suggested we do a thought experiment on how (on the order of) 200 climate change experts could deliberate together using an on-line argumentation tool. Apropos of that, here's an article that suggests a possible focus for such a deliberation: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0407/p03s02-wogi.html
All, I suggested to Mark in an email that we could have some fun and maybe get our bearings as a group if we conducted the following thought experiment:
if we suddenly had 200 willing climate experts and a little money, what would we need to do to to make it a serviceable platform for them to engage with each other on the key issues?
We could do the thought experiment on Debategraph, or Collaboratorium, or (if I sort out the groupware issues) even Compendium; and I’m sure there are others. It’s basically a way of asking “What are the requirements for an HC4D system?” but without being quite so ponderous and abstract.
Mark, I agree that the "Climate change debate: push emissions goals or technology?" article gets to one of the most contentious strategic aspects of the global warming issue, and an excellent candidate for the thought experiment.
So, if this seems sensible, we face 2 decisions:
1. Which deliberation-tool should we select for our first thought experiment?