#working groups

[theartofprose]

Whenever someone pronounces the word oeuvre as "oo-vra" all I can think of is a band of poets using it as a battle cry (like the marines' 'oorah' or ura).

[citypeoplenews]

Senior Finance and Budget Officer at African Development Bank (AfDB)

Senior Finance and Budget Officer at African Development Bank (AfDB)

African Development Bank (AfDB) – In September 1964, a group of Africans met in Khartoum, Sudan, to ratify the multinational agreement to set up the African Development Bank. They were representing the continent’s newly formed twenty-five governments. They had the same mission and bore the same hope. Their hope was to see the new institution contribute to the continent’s development and unity.

View On WordPress

[jadeforester]

Kicking off the Badge Alliance working groups

Launched at the Summit to Reconnect Learning, the Badge Alliance is a network focused on building and enhancing an open badging ecosystem. The organizations and individuals in this network are volunteering to roll up their sleeves and do the work necessary to move the badging work forward. Together we will be tackling key issues facing the ecosystem, working collaboratively to reach shared goals for badging success. These organizations and individuals form the working groups that are the lifeblood of the Alliance, and the ecosystem we are building.

The Badge Alliance is modeled on a constellation framework where we individually and collectively foster and grow the ecosystem in an intelligent, distributed, and sustainable way.

All of the work of the Badge Alliance is being done through the working groups: all of the key issues are tackled through these specific groups, and most of our work on the Badge Alliance team will be to facilitate, recruit for and shepherd the working groups.

As Erin Knight, Badge Alliance Executive Director, says, “together is the only way we succeed.” We’ve created some theories for working out the groups’ logistics, guidelines and accountability processes, and we know this is going to be a continual work in progress, achieving much more as a network than any of us could on our own.

Working Groups: logistics + operations

Now that the working groups are set up and are starting to establish guidelines and goals, we can share more information about how the working groups are structured, what membership might look like, and more details on what each initial working group will focus their efforts on.

Roles + participation

Each working group includes a(n):

Chair - Representative of the organization leading the working group’s conversations.

Cabinet (optional) - Set of organizations responsible for setting the group’s initial goals, strategy and roadmap. Some working groups may not need a Cabinet and this work may be done by the Chair.

Badge Alliance Liaison - Dedicated member of the Badge Alliance team that will work with the Chair/Cabinet to analyze feedback from the broader community, draft proposed plans, track the work, recruit working group members from other organizations, etc.

Secretary - Group member responsible for meeting notes, generating reports for the BA team and the community, keeping the website updated, etc. This person is chosen by the Chair and BA team and can be on a volunteer or meeting-by-meeting basis.

Advisory group (optional) - Recruited set of real 'users' or stakeholders for the working group topic. For example, for the Educator Badges working group, the Advisory Group consists of real educators. The Chair/Cabinet will recruit the Advisory Group and then leverage them for user testing, surveys, focus groups, etc.

Community - The full set of organizations that have signed up for the working group. In many cases, there are more than 100 organizations signed up. These organizations weigh in on the proposed goals/strategy/roadmap through regular community calls and the mailing list. Different levels of participation / commitment are welcomed in each group: community members can raise their hand to play a deeper role in implementation or planning if they’d like to, or just be a part of the group and give feedback on the group’s forum.

Timeline

We are framing the timeline for working group actions as “cycles” that will define terms for group leadership, and provide short-term deadlines for deliverables on the groups’ goals. The First Cycle runs from April to September 2014, allowing the groups (and leadership) the room to test the waters, learn what works, and evolve as we go, reconfiguring the process for the Second Cycle if needed.

The hope is that cycles will encourage real work getting done, though this First Cycle is focused more on kicking off each working group and setting attainable goals for September, at which point we will review, set new goals, adjust group structure if necessary (i.e. breakout into new working groups, etc.), and continue moving forward.

How we'll get the work done

Most working groups will likely hold a call every other week, where the Chair/Cabinet can gather feedback from the participants on important proposals, plans, and deliverables on the group’s goals. In between meetings, the broader working group community can weigh in on these and other issues asynchronously in the working group forums and mailing lists.

The Chairs of all of the working groups will meet once a month with the Badge Alliance team to discuss overlaps and connections across working groups, as well as consider best practices and challenges facing the groups.

In these first few weeks, the Chairs/Cabinets will work with their Badge Alliance Liaisons to define the problems each group will tackle, the specific goals and deliverables needed to address them, a roadmap for achieving their goals, and a plan for meeting, communicating, and getting work done among the working group members. This initial proposal will be vetted by each group’s broader membership before the work of the group moves forward.

Working Groups: Focus + Goals

When we softly launched the Badge Alliance in February, we defined ten initial working groups to address some of the most crucial issues facing the ecosystem. Below are more detailed descriptions of each group’s focus. Click the links under each group’s description to apply for membership to the Google group, which also acts as a mailing list until the full launch of the Badge Alliance in June, at which point each group will have a dedicated page linked from the Badge Alliance site.

Open Badges Standard

This group is focused on shaping the evolution of the open badge infrastructure (OBI) or standard. Chris McAvoy, Lead Engineer of the Open Badges project, is the Chair of this working group. In their kick-off call, the group began drafting a manifesto document outlining what the working group is going to do and where it’s going to go. To date, the standard has been a series of specifications, which can be confusing. The goal of this group is to move the specifications more towards a standard that is clearer and easier to align with, maintain, and build from.

Apply for membership here

Endorsement

This group is going to explore how to build functionality and practice around third party endorsement of badges. As one of the most frequently discussed questions around open badges, endorsement will be a crucial part of expanding the ecosystem and connecting key stakeholders to badges and adding to the value of badges in the wild.

Apply for membership here

Cities & Network-wide Badge Systems

This group is focused on building and connecting badge systems across cities and other networks. The Cities of Learning initiative is one example of how a city-wide initiative can work to help youth connect to out-of-school learning spaces (museums, libraries, park services, maker spaces, etc.), explore new interests and passions, gain real-world job skills, and create linkages between out-of-school experiences and in-classroom learning. This working group will reflect the growing momentum of the Cities of Learning initiative and find ways to leverage badge systems across networks and cities to create a more connected, richer learning network for learners to tap into.

Apply for membership here

Badges Messaging

This group will explore ways to talk consistently and effectively about badges to different audiences. From looking at the preferred vocabulary of various fields and industries to finding the right ‘language’ to convey badge concepts to specific groups, this group’s work will support and empower the work of all the working groups as well as the Badge Alliance itself as we move forward with growing the open badge ecosystem.

Apply for membership here

Globalization, Localization & Badge the World

This group will focus on encouraging and supporting badging in other countries and cultures. This includes building out the localization efforts our community started over the past few years to make badges and badging resources accessible to non-English speakers, as well as supporting the globalization efforts of organizations like Digital Me, who launched Badge The World in partnership with Mozilla at last year’s Mozilla Festival.

Apply for membership here

Web Literacy & Digital Literacy Badges

This group is looking at encouraging the growth of a shared badge system (or systems) for promoting and recognizing important digital skills. “Digital literacy is to the 21st century what reading, writing and math were to the 20th century - vital to creativity, empowerment and economic opportunity,” said Erin Knight, former Director of Learning + Badges at Mozilla and now the Executive Director of the Badge Alliance. This group will focus on developing and connecting badge systems for 21st-century digital skills and web literacies that often aren’t captured by traditional credentials and formal degrees.

Apply for membership here

Badges for Higher Education

This group will work on finding ways to get badges included in the admissions evaluation process for higher education as well as course content and credentialing informal learning experiences. Higher education admissions is one of the biggest hurdles for widespread adoption of open badges, and this group will focus on informing and supporting institutions of further and higher education to recognize badges earned by students at the secondary level and beyond.

Apply for membership here

Recruiting Next Generation Workforce & Acceptance by Employers

This group is exploring the ways to link badges to jobs, internships, career advancement and other opportunities within the workforce. As well as higher education admissions, one of the biggest hurdles for widespread adoption of open badges is workforce acceptance and recognition of badges, so the work of this group is very important to the overall growth of the ecosystem.

Apply for membership here

Badges for Educators & Professional Development

This group will focus on ways to connect badges to granular recognition for educators who innovate and pursue continued professional development. Initiatives like Connected Educators Month show how powerful a tool technology can be in the classroom, but many educators hesitate to pursue activities for which they won’t be acknowledged. This group will inform and support educators in their efforts and help with the recognition of their innovation through badges.

Apply for membership here

Open Badges Research

For those who have been involved with the open badges research calls, this group is the natural evolution of our efforts towards building a research base around badges and badge system design thinking. Carla Casilli, Director of Design + Practice at the Badge Alliance, is the BA Liaison for this group. Sheryl Grant, the Director of Social Networking for HASTAC/MacArthur Foundation, is the chair for this working group. Nate Otto, who you may know through his work with Dan Hickey and Indiana University's Design Principles Documentation project is the group's secretary. Sheryl, Nate, and Carla will be shepherding the work of this group to explore and expand research on open badges.

Apply for membership here

These ten initial working groups aren’t comprehensive, of course, but reflect where we and the broader community sense the most urgency, in helping drive adoption on both the ‘issuing’ and ‘consuming’ sides of badging. We’ve also identified a set of areas that will form new working groups or key themes across existing groups in the near future. These include things like badges within schools, validation, pathways, and privacy/data concerns around badges.

Join us!

When we launched the Badge Alliance, Erin shared some of the thinking behind her work on her blog:

One of the reasons we have created the Badge Alliance is that this work is so much bigger than any individual organization. It’s going to take a village. It’s going to take an ecosystem. That means non-profits, tech providers, agencies, institutions, schools, corporations, foundations have a role to play. It’s only through connection and collaboration across these organizations and sectors, that we will make significant progress for learners and workers across their lifetimes. (Truth in Tagline)

As we move forward, we invite you to help connect and collaborate within (and beyond) your organizations, to roll up your sleeves and dig in with us, to help us support and expand the open badge ecosystem.

Founding members of the #badgealliance from across sectors and continents with leader @eknight at #SRL14 pic.twitter.com/HNSJIYtuwP

— Mozilla Open Badges (@OpenBadges)

February 13, 2014

[posteurop]

The PostEurop Organisational Chart has been updated on 12 July 2012. 

[occupythinktank-blog]

General Assembly

Location: Liberty Park

Facilitator:  Courtney

Topic: The General Assembly--what is it, and how can we make it better?

--We're talking about the GA, lately there have been a couple of proposals up to change its structure, and they haven't gone through for whatever reasons. A lot of people think that what we have isn't working, and a few of us talked about this as a think tank discussion topic for that reason.

--There was a proposal two weeks ago to change to a discussion group every Saturday, and to make Thursdays an action GA.  I felt like those two proposals were weirdly inflexible, although I do agree that what we have right now isn't working that well.

--I think the process the GA is using right now isn't actually consensus--it's a form of consensus, but not really achieving what consensus is supposed to achieve. What the GA does is 20 minutes of "sort of" discussion; consensus is coming up with a proposal as a group.  It's not supposed to be a form of voting based on whether or not you agree or disagree. 

--CT Butler has been in town, we need to spread the word, especially for people who don't understand that this isn't just voting. 

--Can you elaborate on that?

--It is the process of arriving at a decision where all aspects of a person, feelings, who you are, your history can play a role in the process.  It’s not supposed to be just “do I agree with this or not”.

--I think the issue is partly ownership--when people present things to the GA, they feel like their input is voted on.

--I actually think the GA process we have right now is really efficient.  We don't have time to hear everything that everyone says.

--I think efficiency is the problem.  Why do we need to come to so many decisions as a group, in theory there should be very few things we agree on.  The idea isn’t to turn out proposals. 

--Working groups are the result of all of that.  Vision and Goals come into the meeting and their ideas get shot down, and they’ve put all this time into it.  Maybe the answer is more autonomy to the working groups?

--I completely agree with that, especially decisions that don’t affect the whole group.

--A lot of people feel like the whole process would work better if money weren’t involved.

--I don’t think that’s the main issue

--60 people are not that many considering how many there are at OWS. Why don’t more people show up?

--I think attendance is low at Gas because people are involved in other working groups, and because they have jobs. They don’t have time to do that and come to every GA. 

--In Queens, we had some of these issues, so we dissolved the facilitation team. That seemed to work, but it was a smaller group, and there was a lot of mistrust of facilitation.

--What about the GA as a governing body—I don’t think it should be that, I think it should be “decision making”, and a space to build a bigger community. How can we govern anything?

--The GA works as a small group, spokes should be the governing body.  It’s hard to have a real GA, in a small group the discussion can be more in depth.  Imagine a GA of 5,000 people, and everyone wants to talk for 5 minutes

--We’re trying to change what we see as wrong, maybe the most important thing is making the right decision for the whole group. It’s a diverse group.

--it gets harder to facilitate the larger the group gets

--I lived in an anarchist commune of 900 people. We rarely had big meetings.  Groups work autonomously, and in that there has to be a lot of trust.  You have to trust that other people know what they’re doing, and a lot of times you don’t even know what they’re doing.  But if you find out about something, and you really don’t like it, you have to get involved with that group.  

--Spokes was supposed to be the operational body for working groups.  It was a shit show at first, but it has gotten a lot better. 

 --I think the question is why are you here?  Why are we here as individuals, and what do we think the GA should be for?

--I’m here because I see this as an opportunity to really change things. I think the structures we have, however flawed, are the best way to address the things we’re trying to address. Radical inequality vs. radical equality.  I think it’s also again the question of whether or not we’re prefiguring something, if this could anticipate a better structure in place of the ones we have, or if it’s more important that we build a movement.  I wonder if there’s a question of internal vs. external tensions.

--I don’t go to GA that often, but if the majority decides to oppress the shit out of you, you need a structure to respond to it.

--that’s a good point—because when we’re anticipating something else in the future, we have to address what’s happening in the moment.

--I’m here because this is the space to think about an alternative. This is the first space like this where I didn’t’ feel alienated, people really listen to you here. and people are talking to each other.

--It is empowering.  For all its problems people do listen to each other. I don’t feel that in my daily life. It’s been really good for me.

--It’s always about money, money is a responsibility for us, whether we like it or not. It’s like we’re afraid of it.  We can think of better ways of dealing with money. 

--There is the issue of transparency in proposals as well. Like when people present a proposal to the group for money, and they won’t even tell you what it’s for, like D17.  They asked for $7,000 for something everyone knew wouldn’t work.

--Autonomy versus consensus, a question of inclusion versus exclusion.

--Autonomy doesn’t mean “I can do whatever I want.”

--OWS is like a family, whether we like it or not.

--Revolution is like a thief in the night .  All these groups are formed, they are inchoate, and the seeds are planted without people necessarily knowing about it.

[fairfemalefinancingmalawi-blog]

1st round of Working Group Sessions, Nov 23.

Today there will be several Working Group meetings, in which we and our prospective junior and senior partners will try to figure out how to coordinate our projects together. 

Our session will be held at 12:30pm, inviting AHTO, NOVA WA+CH, and mEc.

Also, we were glad to be invited in turn by those three, with the addition of ROOF.

We will try to estimate how many Working Group sessions we will need to formulate our plans into a full-fledged project proposal, meeting all the demands and needs that arise from the various potential cooperations. We're looking forward to what we're sure will be an intense experience!