There's further discussion about openness with Mick Fealty and Eleanor Ford over on the RSA Networks blog, where Eleanor posts:
And I respond:
However, decisions about the architecture and operation of the online system (and other activities) will make a big difference from the outset. It seems to me that civic innovation projects must involve a wide range of collaborations outside the RSA staff and Fellows ... so the collaboration system must cater for "outside" involvement, not just be a closed talking place for Fellows. Who will make that decision, and how?My reason for reposting this is that Saul and Andy will be demonstrating the prototype system over the next week, and we don't know how decisions are to be made about the way that it will operate. The architecture for project collaboration could be set without anyone being clear about who is the "client" for Saul and Andy (although, I expect they won't let that one slide by in practice:-) and where the governance of the system lies. In my experience, lack of clarity on these issues leads to trouble further down the line.
Openness is also important for the engagement process. At present we don't know who is designing it, and what it is beyond the meeting next week for 250 Fellows.
Which also leads to the question, where are the RSA trustees in all this? Shouldn't they be part of the conversation as custodians of the balance between benefit for Fellows, and benefit for wider interests in society?