Somewhere in the middle of reading Lee's NODAL paper (on the
plane to Boston), I finally figured out how to solve the
problem posed by Jeff Conklin.
Jeff observed that the ability to freely brainstorm required
that attributions were *not* present, so that attention was
focused on ideas, rather than people. In any sort of online,
collaborative design discussion, attribution is therefore not
helpful (or so it would appear).
On the other hand, the ability to faithfully attribute ideas
is equally important. They are the coin of the intellectual
realm -- both the reward for participating and the admission
ticket to future events.
It struck me, then, that attribution must be automatic, and
indelible -- but that *visibility* of attribution must be
at the author's discretion -- and it should only be allowed
after the design document has "quiesced" -- that is, ceased
changing in any substantial way.
Now, it is highly likely that attribution visibility should
occur at the level of the "document" rather than individual
nodes (ideas) within the document. That way, everyone who
participated is a "contributor", even if they contributed
the clay pigeons that got shot down.
But those are details that can be worked out in the publishing
system. The main points are:
a) Attribution must be automatic and indelible.
b) Attribution visibility must be at the author's
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 27 2001 - 14:39:16 PDT