Social Network for RSA Fellows

First #RSAde Meeting - what did we talk about

First Session for the new Digital Engagement group has been arranged at the RSA 8 John Adam Street (Romney Room) for 12 noon to 2pm on 5 May 2010.

The next session will be online using Skype, the main communication channel for the group will be this space.

Spaces are limited to 20 participants and we welcome suggestions for the agenda. Refreshments will be provided but you are welcome to bring your own lunch.

If you would like to take part please contact vivienne.long-ferguson@rsa.org.uk/twitter @vivslf

The session will be faciliated by Jemima Gibbons and myself. Jemima has already outlined potential agenda items for the session within the "whats hot" discussion. This space is for discussions relating to the session on the 5 May.

The Presentation and document attached gives you a flavour of the RSA Digital Engagement programme, a series of social media surgeries that have taken place with Fellows across the UK. These documents provide a picture of what has been done so far in this area, not what should be the focus for the future.

Vivs

Tags: digital, engagement, group, meeting, network, session

Attachments:

RSA Digital Engagement.ppt, 3 MB
Trustee Digital Engagement.doc, 41 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tessy Britton on May 7, 2010 at 14:30

Thanks David for your comment.

There are certainly multiple perspectives on this. The greatest potential of this group is to examine all these dynamics and look for good ways forward. I guess where I am a little more cautious is about diagnosing a 'mess' that the RSA is asking you to rescue.

From my own perspective I believe that we are in an ongoing organisational learning cycle (and I include Fellows here). When we first started to talk about nings, you and I sat in a meeting in JAS where one of the greatest strengths of nings was suggested it's disposability - something that could be used to experiment with. I hope that many of them will stay, I know that Vivs is looking at drafting some analysis of the current situation, but while we, as participants, are still learning, I don't believe that there are instant or easily transferable solutions.

There are many, for example, who don't want to see professional levels of 'community management' adopted on this site, myself included. This view favours us experimenting with a group of Fellows and RSA staff who manage the day to day housekeeping, while creating an open and trusting environment to encourage Fellows and staff to contribute content, engage in conversation.... and get some work done on areas of importance to Fellows.

I am not suggesting an evolutionary approach as such, this implies some measure of a more relaxed 'lets see how we go'. Having solutions emerge from deep and informed conversation which includes both Fellows and RSA staff is quite different from that - you can see from this conversation thread alone that it is difficult and challenging. But these conversations need to continue to be robust - we are not negotiating here, we are seeking solutions.

One of the things that Fellowship Council need to be most protective of, I believe, is it's determination to change the tone of our conversations and break down the barriers to finding intelligent and mutual solutions - incorporating extracted lessons from past experiences - but not being strangled by them.

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 7, 2010 at 14:49

Thanks Tessy, and I admire the style of learning and experimentation you are promoting. As you say, Ning (and other free systems) are great for that. However, I would temper that by suggesting that many Fellows who are not at the heart of these discussions would welcome 1) a clear explanation of what is happening and 2) a good offering of networking service in exchange for their fees.
I'm trying to tease out 1) and questioning whether 2) can be offered solely by the exploratory processes now in play. In doing that I'm experimenting with the role of volunteer socialreporter, which I hope is useful, but may or may not be consonant with the style of other conversations. Learning too :-)

Permalink Reply by Dave Briggs on May 9, 2010 at 15:31

Various elements are starting to emerge from this discussion:

1. the purpose and objectives of online activity for the RSA and for fellows
2. the roles involved, who should be responsible for them and how much activity should be performed by volunteers
3. the tools and platforms to be used

I'd suggest that this order is probably the right one to tackle these issues in. Until we know what we want to achieve, either as the RSA as a corporate body, the Fellows collectively or each one of us individually, we can't really figure out who does what and when, and certainly not whether Grou.ps is better than WordPress or Ning, or whatever.

Whilst I can see where Tessy is coming from with not wanting professional levels of community management here, or wherever else fellows' activity is taking place online, nonetheless an online community cannot hope that someone will just step up to the plate and put the effort in where it is needed. Any community has roles to fill and not all of them are the sorts of things people readily volunteer for. Also, I can't think of any online community that has been successful where there hasn't been a small central group of people driving that community forward, filling those vital roles of community manager, content gardner, tech steward, social reporter. Not specifying the roles and making people responsible for them leaves too much to hope, I think.

This isn't to say that someone gets the job of managing a RSA fellows' online community, or someone gets paid to do some tidying up. It just means that there is someone who takes responsibility to make sure it happens when it's needed.