Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:30:00 -0700
Reply-To:     coyote <coyote@LIKEMINDS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         coyote <coyote@LIKEMINDS.COM>
Subject:      Re: CD, difficulty reviewing archives. (lite VW content)
Comments: To: GMBulley <GMBulley@AOL.COM>, Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
In-Reply-To:  <83eac40c.352e59ca@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

>jskousen has a point. There's alot of non-technical stuff in the archive.
>However:
>
>I am working this issue right now in my professional life: helping a global
>company refine their "knowledge management"; how they accumulate, refine,
>distribute, and re-use ideas, processes, and knowledge. Similar to
>our list.
>
>One of the substantial hurdles my client faces (as do WE with this CD!) is
>"subject matter expert review of accumulated knowledge". e.g.
>
>1. How do we, as a group, decide someone is a "best mechanic"?
>
>2. How do we incent/insprire these choosen folks to review reams
>and reams of
>contributions?
>
>3. What criterion will they use to cull the knowledge? i.e. what
>is our goal
>for this CD: just pure info, info and judgement, opinion, stories, hints,
>ponderings, etc.
>
>My client has some of the best minds in HR and Organizational Development
>scratching their heads on these questions. I wish I could help point our CD
>effort in the right direction on this, but I am just learning
>these lessons.
>
>I've never seen the list as a place simply for straight tech
>answers, and hope
>that the stories, ruminations, flame, and cheer of my fellow VWers are not
>eliminated from any off-line collection.

I agree that 'community' should remain in a published collection.  The only
editing I would suggest is to remove obviously frivolous messages, i.e.,
messages that read:

     unsub vanagon please

Coyote