E-Consultation Guide - User contributions [en]

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T11:22:07Z

Dave: /* Online distributed conversations */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== Old: 21st Century town meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== New: Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, [https://youtu.be/BGH1y70zSkg Zoom videoconferencing] has been used for webinars and online discussions by [http://www.globalnet21.org/ GlobalNet21] and in [http://www.gurteen.com/ David Gurteen]'s [http://knowledge.cafe/ knowledge cafés]. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to:
* introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously.
* Participants discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups.
* A technographer in each group would record points in a private channel.
* A topic team tags these points to classify them.
* Editors take these filtered points to create options to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I discussed how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/ Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

=== Key questions ===

# What topics will generate enough interest?
# How to recruit hundreds of rooms?
# Facilitation processes and people?
# Which technology mix?
# Who will organise?
# Funding?

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T11:21:55Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== Old: 21st Century town meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, [https://youtu.be/BGH1y70zSkg Zoom videoconferencing] has been used for webinars and online discussions by [http://www.globalnet21.org/ GlobalNet21] and in [http://www.gurteen.com/ David Gurteen]'s [http://knowledge.cafe/ knowledge cafés]. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to:
* introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously.
* Participants discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups.
* A technographer in each group would record points in a private channel.
* A topic team tags these points to classify them.
* Editors take these filtered points to create options to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I discussed how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/ Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

=== Key questions ===

# What topics will generate enough interest?
# How to recruit hundreds of rooms?
# Facilitation processes and people?
# Which technology mix?
# Who will organise?
# Funding?

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T11:21:13Z

Dave: /* Key questions */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, [https://youtu.be/BGH1y70zSkg Zoom videoconferencing] has been used for webinars and online discussions by [http://www.globalnet21.org/ GlobalNet21] and in [http://www.gurteen.com/ David Gurteen]'s [http://knowledge.cafe/ knowledge cafés]. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to:
* introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously.
* Participants discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups.
* A technographer in each group would record points in a private channel.
* A topic team tags these points to classify them.
* Editors take these filtered points to create options to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I discussed how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/ Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

=== Key questions ===

# What topics will generate enough interest?
# How to recruit hundreds of rooms?
# Facilitation processes and people?
# Which technology mix?
# Who will organise?
# Funding?

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T11:20:36Z

Dave: /* Online distributed conversations */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, [https://youtu.be/BGH1y70zSkg Zoom videoconferencing] has been used for webinars and online discussions by [http://www.globalnet21.org/ GlobalNet21] and in [http://www.gurteen.com/ David Gurteen]'s [http://knowledge.cafe/ knowledge cafés]. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to:
* introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously.
* Participants discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups.
* A technographer in each group would record points in a private channel.
* A topic team tags these points to classify them.
* Editors take these filtered points to create options to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I discussed how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/ Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

=== Key questions ===

1. What topics will generate enough interest?
2. How to recruit hundreds of rooms?
3. Facilitation processes and people?
4. Which technology mix?
5. Who will organise?
6. Funding?

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T11:16:11Z

Dave: /* Online distributed conversations */ added in more links

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, [https://youtu.be/BGH1y70zSkg Zoom videoconferencing] has been used for webinars and online discussions by [http://www.globalnet21.org/ GlobalNet21] and in [http://www.gurteen.com/ David Gurteen]'s [http://knowledge.cafe/ knowledge cafés]. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/ Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T11:10:07Z

Dave: /* Online distributed conversations */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/ Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:32:19Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */ made into bullet points

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings].

* 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people.
* At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker.
* The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table.
* Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables.
* These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options.
* By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:30:45Z

Dave: add in heading for new project

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

== Online distributed conversations ==

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:27:22Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:25:14Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[[http://www.americaspeaks.org/|America Speaks]] used to run [[http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0|21st century town meetings]]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:23:20Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org/| America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0| 21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:22:32Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org/ | America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0 | 21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:21:56Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org/| America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0| 21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:21:43Z

Dave: /* 21st Century distributed meetings */

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org/| America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0|21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Possible innovations

2017-10-22T10:21:17Z

Dave: added link to America speaks video

In the last few years it has become possible to use newer technologies in public consultation. In particular, online videoconferencing has become more reliable, so some of the techniques used in face to face meetings can be done online.

== 21st Century distributed meetings ==

[http://www.americaspeaks.org/|America Speaks] used to run [http://youtu.be/Rq5EkW0xIw0|21st century town meetings]. They got 6000 people together in a hall, sat around 600 tables of 10 people. At each table there was a facilitator and a note taker. The note taker typed into a computer points from the discussion on that table. Notes from each table were read by a team who picked out themes and ideas common to several tables. These were fed back to the whole hall who could vote on options. By the end of the day in New York they had come up with a set of ideas on what to do with the Twin Towers site. 6000 New Yorkers wanted tall skyscrapers.

Now imagine using the same process, but distributed over scores of houses scattered around a country. Consider the way the Bernie Sanders campaign got thousands of people to set up local meetings to view his campaign launch speech over the Internet. In each town a volunteer invited people to a place to see the speech then run a local discussion on what to do there.

There are video conferencing tools that are now reliable enough to connect hundreds of such local meetings. For example, Zoom videoconferencing has been used for webinars and online discussions by GlobalNet21 and in David Gurteen's knowledge cafés. It has good audio quality, shares video or computer screens and lets people be split up into breakout groups.

So we could use such a video conferencing service to introduce the topic to dozens or hundreds of rooms simultaneously. The participants could then discuss the topic face-to-face or in breakout groups. The technographer in each group would record points in a twitter-like (but private) channel. A topic team will then tag these points to classify them. A few people will take these filtered points to write up proposals to be presented back to the whole meeting.

I will be discussing how to make this happen (including technology, organisation, funding and purpose) during the [http://ofuexchange.net/| Online Facilitation Unconference], 16-22 October.

Technology

2017-10-22T10:18:24Z

Dave:

We do not attempt to list here all forms of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) that might be used within a public consultation. Instead, we attempt to explain how you can go about selecting appropriate technologies for use in e-consultation.

#[[Selecting technologies]]
#[[Technology classification]]
#[[Technology matching for E-consultation]]
#[[Possible innovations]]

File:Managing the consultation process digraph manageclass dot.png

2016-08-05T17:17:36Z

Dave: generated by the GraphViz extension from the Managing the consultation process page