Create an article about dyneema and other high tech lines - their handling and uses

Implementation
1

This project grew out of a desire to engage members of the Nonsuch community in a project using Discourse. The goal is to have the team gain an understanding in the use of Discourse, have the Discourse site managers better understand what will be required to support Discourse use, and to assess this system’s ability to support collaborative projects.

The project

The original charge to the Discourse team from the Board, via an email from Bob Neches, was:

They liked the idea of development and testing with a focus group and a sample topic. (Esp. if, as you suggested, Jon, there’s circling back to the Google Group to keep the larger community in the loop and potentially interested.)

There was some interest in the topic of “hi-tech line, knots, splicing, and applications”. An alternative suggestion that was suggested for our consideration would be to pick up on Discussion Group “great ideas” topic (https://groups.google.com/g/INA-Nonsuch-Discussion-Group/c/SLmG-77FFSQ).

This dovetailed with a suggestion from Rob Cohen as something of interest:

  • Using dyneema
    • reduce wear on aging castings.
    • extend the life of running rigging
    • Ease of operation.
    • basic splicing tips

The participants

A first pass at a list of potential users for the test drive ?

  • The board
  • Brian M. Godfrey - An email user who can comment on behalf of email users.
  • Gary Forster - The guy that organized the diesel workshop. Not sure how he feels about email vs app.
  • Ward Woodruff - Mostly a lurker, very friendly and prefers one-on-one conversations. Avid racer and strong mechanical aptitude. He had a mast failure about 4 years ago and used a carbon fiber replacement.
  • Brian Cayer - New owner. Easy going guy, would provide good moderate perspective.
  • ** Previous participants** See if anyone who worked on the Guide document is willing to be a part of this group.

First Steps - not chronologically listed

  1. Investigate whether someone has developed a best practices for how to manage a team working on a collaborative document
  2. Invite the team members. If we don’t enlist an adequate number, determine how to enlist other participants.
  3. Meet with the group to clarify the charge
  4. Go through the process of setting up accounts and getting the team familiar with the very basics of Discourse

Questions:

  • should one or two members of the implementation team actively participate in this group

  • should we try to find someone in the larger group with project management experience to participate

2

Given the way you have responded to the critical thinking I have offered, I suggest that you remove the individuals that I suggested from the test group participants. I fear they would be as frustrated with the “evaluation process” as I have been.

Our effort has somehow morphed from an honest evaluation into a fait accompli. Not sure if we actually need further testing, unless we plan to openly accept feedback and use it to formulate a position.

3

Rob, I have responded to your critical thinking with my critical thinking. We have an intractable difference of opinion. I will set up a topic, copy in a pair of our earlier postings, and let people see both sides and offer their input should they want to.

Let’s take the quotes off of the “evaluation process”. We are here to evaluate the capabilities of Discourse to see if it fits our stated needs. These include offering significantly improved functional capabilities while still allowing email only participation in posting and replying, as GDG now does. That is and has been the stated purpose of this effort. That is what Bob N. brought to the Board, They agreed to support this effort. There is no fait accompli - we have barely used Discourse at all. None of us have any idea how it will work for e.g. document editing and reviewing. That’s why we chose this dyneema project. Other explorations of Discourse will follow.

The feedback you are referring to has not been about Discourse and it’s functional capabilities. You seem to feel that this evaluation itself is somehow being done under false pretenses - that should there be a positive outcome to our review of Discourse, we have somehow hoodwinked people. If you feel that this undertaking itself is flawed, then you can/should express that to the Board, or at least have a side conversation with Bob G. From my perspective, we are doing what we set out to do. We will see if/how Discourse fills the bill, and also provide an opinion as to whether additional capabilities are worth the effort to get there. The Board will then decide how to proceed. If you still strongly disagree with the entire premise, you can raise that issue again at that time to the Board.

4

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.