http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming#Approach
In particular
No criticism It is often emphasized that in group brainstorming, criticism should be put 'on hold'. Instead of immediately stating what might be wrong with an idea, the participants focus on extending or adding to it, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, you create a supportive atmosphere where participants feel free to generate unusual ideas.
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg. That's not helpful in the long run imho.
Anthere
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council.
Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but it is a nice buzzword that many people seem to identify with, regardless of the fact that they all seem to mean different things when they are using it. We already have quite a lot of bureaucracy, and I'd like to avoid the creation of new structures that are either redundant or potentially harmful. So let's see what possible functions a council could serve:
- Advise the Board and CEO -- that's what the Advisory Board is for.
I'd be open to structuring it in such a way to allow experts from the community an easy way in.
- Make project-level decisions -- why replace direct democracy and
consensus-based processes with a representative bureaucracy? I'd rather see more project-wide votes.
- Act as project representatives to chapters and Foundation, to deal
with confidential information -- we already have the committees. We still haven't figured out a way to make them work, especially the SP-COM, which is exactly tasked with developing partnerships around the projects. I'd rather restructure these existing groups than inventing a completely new one.
- Raise awareness of the Foundation within the projects -- a group
that merely exists to raise awareness can form without the permission of the Foundation. Indeed, such informal groups are probably far less likely to cause trouble than a "Wikicouncil".
My biggest fear is that we start with something poorly defined, or with a very narrow scope, and it evolves into a decision-making structure that replaces existing community processes.Where these processes are currently dysfunctional, I don't think replacing them with a new system is likely to be a good idea. The causes of the dysfunction may only be moved to a different level.
I suggest, as an alternative, that the existing committee and subcommittee structures be reformed and surrounded with completely open "Open Interest Groups" without legal authority. I will make a specific proposal for that in the near future.