• OxfordProposal
• MeetingNotes

Oxford Proposal : OceansEleven
Notes from meeting held on 26 November 2005, and taken by MO
Present: RS, HNO, LR, PEK, MO & KB

Outline

This meeting saw discussion on three main areas of interest: University Workshops, University Organisation, and an initial attempt to promote the use of open-source culture and technology within the wider University System via a KB blog & wiki. The six participants loosely indicated what roles they saw for themselves within the proposal team, and orange juice was drunk and pizza eaten.

Please be aware that these are notes, and not minutes, so I haven't expressly credited anyone with specific ideas. Rather I tried to incorporate everyone's comments so that they will fall within the three areas mentioned above: this hopefully resulted in a more structured version of our conversations...

Workshops: introduction

Initial discussion introduced issue of University Workshop viability, one of KB's concerns. Focus on the Distribution of Resources, and the Visibility of resources (including redundancies, use, booking systems), and how we can use a wiki in order to make information available and restructure the way the system is run at present. It becomes important that, if we are to successfully promote the use of open-source technology and culture to the University, we design this project well: the investment and boundaries need to be well-defined before we attempt to apply it to the practical workshop programme.

This is possibly the best medium-term project, which will form the basis of a feasibility study into changing the way KB's department is run, which in turn will lead on to how to introduce the system (if successful) to University Management.

Workshops: action needed

• Designing a service which allows workshops to publish and promote their labs across the entire University. This would include advertising of expertise and services; advertising of wants and needs; allow interested parties (both within and outside the workshop environment) to see where and how decisions are made; allow interested parties (both within and outside the workshop environment) to see the costs of labour and machinery; share a central site where a sense of social workshop community can be established; allow for a cooperative system of purchasing of equipment; allow for a cooperative system of training opportunities.
• Designing a service which encourages individuals and workshops to take on work.
• Designing a service which could encorporate a schedule and booking systems, allowing those who wish to submit a project to see which individuals or workshops are free or could complete the project within a desired timeframe.
• Considering the usefulness of using RSS to collate data from various workshops.
• A physical investment in promoting interest among the workshop technicians and getting information to get the wiki started. It might be useful to employ a few graduates or undergraduates to collect this information personally. Likewise, we would like to see a personal investment in training the technicians in how to run their wikis after initial set-up - this personal interest would open-up access very quickly and invite immediate contributions. We need to establish how much money KB would be willing to put both these exercises.
• Firstly to build a basic database of expertise. This would simply provide web-pages for individual labs, machines they currently have, and the services they offer. This would then be expanded to include those aspects mentioned above.
• Including a 'sexy' feature or human factor in order to promote an online workshop community. This might include a general 'for sale' category, an alumni section, links to other techincal laboratories and workshops, and a cafeteria menu.

University Organisation: introduction

Problems with the current 'closed' system of University management were identified: lack of structure within the organisation; lack of trust between individuals and groups (read: committees) within the organisation; over-concern with image/reputation of the organisation linked with an 'apparent' fragility in the system; an inability to sense shared core-values between individuals and groups; power-structures which function in a beneficial way by propagating 'untruths' down the rank as a direct result of lack of open communication between individuals and groups; an illusion of hierarchy within the University managament that does not work positively towards the decisions taking place within the organisation.

The purpose of our group's proposal is to utilise the principles of open source in order to open up communication between all interested members of the organisation (read: Oxford University). This would include freeing up Minutes and Agendas from ALL meetings taking place within the organisation, allowing comments to be posted by interested parties referring to those documents, and thus introducing a culture of transparency and co-operation between individuals and groups. The only items that would remain excluded and treated as personal would be those relating to private details of individuals working in the organisation, e.g. relating to salary, contract conditions, or hiring discisions. Due to legal constraints it is also necessary to remember that Official Minutes, etc cannot be edited, and thus these will need to be locked if using a Wiki-system; commentary pages will obviously function along the normal Wiki principles. One of the major concerns is in convincing the organisation that this cultural approach would be beneficial to its functioning and reputation rather than detrimental.

Within an organisation such as uBuntu, to which HNO and RS are affiliated, meetings on all aspects of the organisation are open to anyone to attend or take an interest in, regardless of the fact that competitors will have access to information on topics such as strategy and new products. Opening up access generates so much interest and dynamic action in favour of the organisation, that change within that organisation will always happen faster and more efficiently than within competitor organisations what might wich to copy a selected strategy or product. The resultant dynamic (which includes both positive and negative discussion) from opening access to all areas of information more than outweigh the 'apparent' pitfalls of judgement from other organisations: Collaboration always imporves the quality of information, dynamics, communication, and structure of knowledge.

The idea of having a visible 'spine of information' within the University, which all interested parties can see and comment on, would be more beneficial than the traditional 'spire of information' where groundwork communication is often much more detailed and relevant to the issue at hand than the information which arrives at the top ranks where decisions are taking place. A 'spire of information' means that important descisions are often taken on the basis of a 'concentrated' cocktail of information, with very little real substance as relating to the original issue - modification causes sterility. And due to the opaqueness of the desicion-making process individuals and groups who are affected by those decisions often have no recourse to enquiry or influence over how the information is manipulated before reaching the higher rungs of the organisation.

This part of the proposal will related to a project with long-term aims, and relies on the success of the other two projects.

University Organisation: other advantages of an open-source approach to running an organisation such as Oxford University

• The principles of education and sharing of knowledge is deeply imbedded into the core-values of a university; thus it should make sense that contributions to its structure would be beneficial.
• Quality of information tends to improve in open-source communities because contributing individuals display a wide range of qualities, which might include an ability for succinct transfer of information, strong tendencies for correct use of language, aptitude at removing 'unnecessary clutter' from written documents, or adeptness at physical organisation of material.
• Improving trust in the organisation's decision-making community, by allowing interested individuals and groups to understand exactly what information these decisions are based on, and feeling as if their opinions are both expressed and incorporated in the final outcome. Individuals especially feel maximum empowerment through shared communication, and this is beneficial to the organisation's reputation as well as its day-to-day function.
• Criticisms are included in the structure of communication rather than left out from the final documentation; ALL steps taken before a decision-making body agrees on a plan of action is clearly visible, and thus the general understanding of the problem is improved.
• Creates what is known as a 'do-ocracy' - individuals who contribute regularly promote trust both in their own abilities and the group as a whole. Outside individuals and groups become attracted to the organisation due to it's policies on the involvement of its members.
• Win-win situation in terms of number of people consulted and opinions expressed: usually only a small number of individuals are included in surveys documenting opinion on important decisions for the organisation, which means that both the decision-making group and the affected individuals lose out on information. Open channels of communication allows ALL interested parties to be included in the discussions, and thus represents a much clearer proportion of views.
• The above two points allows for the reduction of an implied hierarchical framework to the organisation; instead, the combined interests of individuals and groups within the organisation are brought to the fore.
• Any inappropriate wiki-behaviour is widely frowned-upon by members of these open communities, and due to the nature of a wiki can be easily removed. Wiki-gardeners/Data-hunters - both officially employed and 'outside' interested parties - keep sites updated, active, functioning, and clear of any real technical and information-related malice. A self-regulating system where individuals can contribute to its upkeep inspires trust and productivity, and is seldom taken advantage of.
• Since the culture of open-source is not based on profit but on a free sharing of quality resources, financial investment in a project is unlikely to be excessive.
• One can grow enlarge an open-source system according to its growth in community without needing to rely on any future softwhere solutions that might tie the organisation into a financial contract with a software company or supplier.
• While known technical and academics needs can be effectively worked on, and an open-source community, by virtue of its ability to include all interested members into the main body, also encourages the formulation and solution of overlooked or future needs.
• Using the example of uBuntu, executive decisions do occur which override the general sentiment of the larger community. However, it is clear that within open-source societies these are only tolerated up to a certain point before a lack of interest towards the specific community's goals will appear. But the trust expressed between both the decision-making body and the general contributors means that such a situation is unlikely to occur. It is probable that such situations will occur far less frequently than in close-off organisational systems.
• Open systems forces those who make decisions to take responsibility for these by exposing them to any resultant critism or praise, both from indivuals and groups.
• The interactive nature of wikis allows for viewpoints from interested parties to be put forth immediately.
• Possibly has future advantages that would promote the University's reputation such as increasing collaborative editing of journal articles, papers, and books.

University Organisation: results wanted & action need

• Establishing a University Community based on trust, through abolishing those systems relying on keeping records of administrative and academic meetings confidential.
• Focussing on how to keep information and communication channels from fragmenting in a negative fashion (fragmentation being one important effect of an open-source system).
• Outlining the factors that might contribute to a failure of this project. This will include fragmentation (as mentioned above); future extensibility after immediate rush of interest; total lack of interest; no adoption of the wider concept of trust by members in decision-making positions.
• Considering the pros and cons of anonymous vs log-in features of contributing to a wiki. For an initial plan of action see 'Keith's Blog: action needed'.
• Establishing if any other universities or educational facilities have taken on board some of the principles of open-sourcing; investigating the results of these ventures, if any others found.
• Considering the possibility of hierarchical traditions within Oxford University that might cause a disruption to the flow of information, especially in those cases where an executive decision is warranted or needed. The hope is however that these cases will be abundantly balanced out by decisions which have involved the entire community, and thus that respect for those events rather than distrust would be the result.
• Designing a system which can incorporate the clear time-scale limits often relating to the University's planning procedures.
• Promoting the aspect of being able to present immediate commentary on issues without facing personal resistance within a close community.

Keith's Blog: introduction

The idea here is that initiating a small-scale setting for implimenting ideas relating to Workshops, University administation and Teaching strategies would be more beneficial and less drastic than trying to convince 3000 administrative members used to a certain tradition of organisational function to share and interact with open information. If KB can be instrumental in suggesting the positive aspects of open-source culture to other individuals in decision-making positions, and/or changing the way his own department is run, then this would be a good basis on which to build the principles of open communication into a University-wide feature. It puts us in a unique position of evolving the concept of TRUST within the university as a whole, without any major financial investment.

KB suggested that an issue such as Oxford teaching strategies would be an ideal way to initiate interest and acceptance of open-source culture. It is easy to start on a small-scale, and is not directly attached to any major and current managerial decisions, and thus would not impact immediately on the system in any way. At the same time it is a topic members both within and without the organisation are passionate about; it is relevant, low-key, principled, and not overtly political.

This assignmment can be immediately initiated with very little initial effort, and will form the basis of both the other two projects.

Keith's Blog: action needed

• Creating a space for, and solicit opinions on working structure of academic aspects of the organisation such as tutorials, lectures, etc. Within this space, look at and actively discuss costs of government investment in choice of teaching strategies TOGETHER with the traditional feelings on Oxford-teaching practices.
• Creatine a space for, and soliciting opinions on specific graduate issues such as supervisor-relationships and research-sharing.

• Encourage a small number of individuals who are passionate about different viewpoints on Oxford teaching traditions to participate in an open-source community. These individuals would be asked to express their opinions and comments in the wiki created for this purpose, and might include a technician, a tutor, an undergraduate, a graduate, and a member of the OceansEleven team.

• Design a wiki which KB would consider using within a Divisional capacity.
• Write an introduction for this project that could be used as an initial catalyst in bringing in contributors to a KB wiki.
• Find another word for 'virus' as relating to a self-perpetuating information system: something that encorporates the concept of a 'virus' but similarly suggests the potential fruitful benefits of such a structure.
• Actively promote the introduction of the Keith's Blog, and the Wiki attached, by focussing on the advantage of making comments without fear, soliciting comments from a vast array of interested parties, and giving people the tools to follow suit.
• Considering if we can integrate the concept of the 'six-thinking-hats' into the principles behind open-source, and how we can apply this to invite participation of individuals and groups in those issues raised via KB and others' initial comments.
• Convincing the University to supply us with www.wiki.ox.ac.uk.
• Creating an anonymous and log-in system for participants. This would allow read-access to all within the University; anonymous write-access to all within the University; log-in write access to those from within the University if they preferred; read-access and write-access to those outside the University community only via log-in.
• As a subset of the above, creating an anonymous and log-in for participants relating to the information displayed. This would possibly be divided into three areas. Strategic information (e.g. relating to general teaching methods, how to promote graduate involvement, lack of facilities, etc) would be allowed to be commented on anonymously. Bottom-up or basic management concerns (e.g. day-to-day departmental business, workshop schedules, etc) would not require any reason for anonymity, and thus would be log-in controlled. Top-down or executive management concerns (e.g. financial investment or major planning proposals) would require log-in access.
• Creating Keith's Blog. It would include a set page for KB's writings, comments pages, and a link to Keith's Wiki, where he might submit copies of proposals from his Blog which others could edit or contribute to.