Original list submitted 30 Oct 2011 by GeneJ. The primary list leads, and a secondary list (Misc. Other Postings) appears at the end. The items are presented, roughly, in chronological order by date created/added.
Members of the wiki can
add to this list or
modify the summaries listed by clicking on the "Edit" tab on the upper part of the screen.
Developing the Organization (DTO) Wiki Links
(10 Nov 2010) “…how to develop a data model,” Greg (from Tom)
BG Data Model Discussion (page) > discussion (17 replies; 176 views)
message/view/BG+Data+Model+Discussion/29953781#29970093
“Should the model be built from the bottom up (requirements), or should we use an existing model as a starting point….” Xvdessel writes, “ the first key decisions will most likely be around the scope: does the model cover only conclusion data with reference to sources (like GEDCOM does) or do we want to extend it to source data elements, the decision process, and the resulting conclusions.”
(10 Nov 2010) “Scope of BG” –Adrian
Goals (old page) > discussion (4 replies; 76 views)
message/view/GOALS/29992501#29999853
In part, “Do we want BG to be a system just used for recording conclusions - pretty much as GEDCOM is now? (Then the question arises - do we want to allow alternative conclusions to be recorded, e.g. for births, even though clearly someone is only born once) … And / or do we want BG to record evidence and / or evidence management?” … gthorud comments, “One way or another, I think you must be able to handle both conclusions and evidence/theory info in the same standard … You may perhaps see both methods used in the same file.”
(13 Nov 2010) “Governance,” John Yates
Who Are We > discussion (10 replies; 298 views)
message/view/Who+Are+We%3F/30149591#30152145
In part, “How will progress be made when there are competing ideas? … I think the rules of engagement need to be written … Should voting members be selected by the founders according to some [criteria]? I think to make progress, this has to be made explicit and followed so that decisions can actually be made.”
(13 Nov 2010) “Do we need … guidelines for … wiki?” Geir Thorud
Home > discussion (5 replies; 103 views)
message/view/home/30132941
“Guidelines for posting or editing,” Geir Thorud
Guidelines+for+posting+or+editing
Page--created 13 Nov 2010; updated 7 times through 21 April 2011.
In part, “[without guidelines] we will be spending a lot of time reading irrelevant text or reading documents that are too complex to understand for some readers. It is then likely that the reader will not understand the point you are trying to make”
(20 Nov 2010) Weekly or bi-weekly conference calls?—G. Lamberson
Home > discussion (6 replies; 116 views)
message/view/home/30564239
20 Dec 2010 Organizers Meeting Notes, Geir Thorud
20 Dec 2010 Organizers Meeting Notes > discussion, 21 Dec 2010
message/view/20+Dec+2010+Organizers+Meeting+Notes/32023833
Scope, priorities, reorganizing wiki and need for improved wiki, need to manage topical focus…
(27 Dec 2010) Proposed Agenda 3 Jan 2011 Developers’ Meeting—DearMyrtle
Developers Meeting > discussion, 27 Dec 2010 (12 replies, 158 views)
message/view/Developers+Meeting/32107534#32144986
See also the Page history dated 3 Jan 9:59 a.m.
page/diff/Developers+Meeting/190650282
official agenda for our meeting: 1. Agreement on how to vote; 2. Agreement on basic aims of this "project”;
3. Agreement on methodology ; 4. Agreement on national vs. international; 5. Agreement on initial time line;
6. Agreement on meeting frequency.
3 Jan 2011 Dev Meeting Notes
Page, created 3 Jan 2011
3+Jan+2011+Dev+Meeting+Notes
“How to vote” included much discussion on who should vote. “Meeting consensus” reached that “Item to be voted upon is put on the BetterGEDCOM wiki on a Monday. On the following Wednesday, the vote on that item is opened, remains open through that Friday, at which time the vote closes. Minimum 50% of eligible parties must vote for votes to be considered valid. If 75% of the valid votes are in favor (yes) or can live with it (yes, I can live with it), consensus will be deemed met; the issue is passed. We will try to design so those who vote are provided a short comment field. “
(16 Jan 2011) Survey Results-3 Jan 2011 Developers Meeting
Page, created 16 Jan 2011
Survey+Results+-+3+Jan+2011+Developers+Meeting
17 Jan 2011 Developers Meeting Notes
Page, updated 8 times
17Jan2011DevelopersMeetingNotes
(21 Feb 2011) Stakeholders—Geir Thorud discussion
BetterGEDCOM Requirements Catalog > discussion (1 reply; 31 views)
message/view/Better+GEDCOM+Requirements+Catalog/34442668
(21 Feb 2011) Scope—Brianjd discussion
BetterGEDCOM Requirements Catalog > discussion (4 replies; 42 views)
message/view/Better+GEDCOM+Requirements+Catalog/34579744
Discussion about whether or not BG should include “compliance testing.”
(28 Feb 2011) ManagementIssues, DearMyrtle
Page, create
28 Feb 2011, updated about 12 times. Last updated 2 May 2011
ManagementIssues
Subtitle is FAQ Management Issues. Refers to/links to “FAQ Guidelines for Posting and Editing,” “Technical Tips on how to do things on the wiki,” WikiSpaces help. Contains information about moderators.
(19 Apr 2011) …. BetterGEDCOM E&C defined?—Mike Martineau
Defining E&C for BetterGEDOM > discussion (15 replies, 171 views)
message/view/Defining+E%26C+for+BetterGEDCOM/37787542?o=20#37819150
A proposal for ways Mike suggested we collaborate to develop E&C. (See also the listing here, “BetterGEDCOM Rules and Guidelines” page.)
(30 April 2011) BetterGEDCOM Rules and Guidelines—Mike Martineau
Page created 30 April 2011
BetterGedcom+Rules+and+Guidelines
A proposed set of rules and guidelines for project management as proposal to discussion/debate and voting. While there was some focus on what might have been called a “subproject,” this page developed ideas for project and wiki wide management and decision making. This proposal maintained the Wiki as the primary project workspace for proposals, collaboration, discussion and voting.
(2 May 2011) Proposal: Proposal for BetterGEDCOM to C.A.R.E.—GeneJ
Page, 2 May 2011 (7 comments in 2 discussion topics)
Proposal+for+BetterGEDCOM+to+C.A.R.E
Page describes a system called “Innovate with C.A.R.E.,” a skills/roles and task approach to teamwork project management. Related discussion suggests the concepts were good, but it was probably too formal and it would require more active participants to make it work.
(26 June 2011) Future Direction of BG?--Adrian
Home > discussion (37 replies, 826 views)
message/view/home/40495335
In part, “what is BetterGEDCOM currently aiming for and has it got any chance of reaching its goal
… So - what do we want to do? Can we do it? Is it worth doing? Why should anyone listen to us?”
(26 Sept 2011) Developing the Organization—G. Clarke
Page, created 26 Sept 2011. There are 5 related discussion topics which have a combined approx 130 views. (Please see the discussion tab also. Some highlights of these discussions in subsequent entries)
Developing+the+Organization
Some comments also in Developer Meeting notes:
19 Sept 2011-
19Sep2011DevelopersMeetingNotes
26 Sept 2011 -
2011DevelopersMeeting26Sept
17 Oct 2011-
17Oct2011DevelopersMeetingNotes
24 Oct 2011-
24October2011DevelopersMeetingNotes
(2 Oct 2011) A few comments on Developing the Organization---Geir Thorud
Developing the Organization > discussion (33 views)
message/view/Developing+the+Organization/43501164
Comments, “a process must be directed by user requirements, or a description of what needs a solution satisfies. There has to be a formal procedure that ensures this, as in many ISO standard processes. The standard should not be based on technical solutions in search for a need, but there is also a need for technical excellence.
Somewhat opens about SourceTemplates.org, but then discusses organization in the context of BG. Geir writes, “what is needed first is a definition of the scope or goal of that work, detailed with a list of requirements to the solution. Then you need to find out who intends to participate in the work, and thirdly you need to decide how the work should progress and how decisions will be made etc. “ Also poses the question of input and balance, transparency and openness, ownership and cost, international scope, whether the organization will perform real development.
(2 Oct 2011) Just a thought… ---Andy H.
Developing the Organization > discussion (6 replies, 64 views)
message/view/Developing+the+Organization/43590232
Discussion of some ways to advance this page. Several replies comment on the topic of incorporation/non-profit aspect of the page.
(15 Oct 2011) re … [“organization of the work”] Geir Thorud,
An Architecture … > discussion
message/view/An+architecture+for+sources%2C+reference+notes+and+bibliographies/41385265?o=40#44317716
In part, “Re. organization of the work. If BG does not redefine its scope into something that relates to its capabilities, and does not make a serious effort to get organized as something that allows people who want to work together towards a clearly specified limited (sub-)goal, rather than being than an open discussion club, it may end up….”
Misc Other Postings:
Approaches to Standardization—Greg Lamberson page, 31 Oct 2010
Approaches+To+Standardization
Page updated 8 times through 30 Nov 2010
“Has W3C been considered as a standards body?” Todd D Robbins discussion, 9 Dec 2010
message/view/home/31500593
1 reply, 80 views