Re: [seul-edu] Summing up our discussion so far

["Prevett, Larry" <Prevettl@cochise.cc.az.us>]

| I think members of the coalition should think about redistributing
| some of their current tasks to reduce redundancy,

I was thinking about this, too, but I finally came to the conclusion
that redundancy is a good thing. It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.
I realize this runs counter to everyone else's thinking, so I'd like to 
explain, and see what people think.

When people see something repeated over and over again it's more
likely to stick in their minds as something important.

Redundancy also gives people a sense of scope - a sense that many
people are involved, not just one big organization.
I was very encouraged by the list of current resources Roger made
because it was evidence that a lot of people were putting their  
energy into the various tasks. That's healthy.

I don't think it's a problem that there is duplication in some tasks.
Besides, as others have mentioned, the effort put into a task is
always of more benefit to the one that does the job. People,
especially younger folks, need to be encouraged to get involved and
_do_ things, not just talk about them. I think an environment with  
a healthy dose of redundancy is more likely to allow someone to find
a niche and get involved.

The whole technology of the internet was built around the idea of
redundancy - different routes to the same location. So if one site
goes down, or one 'flavor' of a thing doesn't really grab you then
you try something else instead of just giving up.

I also expect there would be a lot of cross-pollination between
sites. It's a good way to interact with your own material.
For example, we started stuffing software into the wiki, then
Les did a great job of rendering list in a better environment (at
least I think that's what happened. Les?) That's not a conflict  
in my mind, that's an example of something working.

So, finally, I think the extent of the organization of SchoolForge
should be something similar to what Roger summarized: a well-planned
collection of existing links and needed resources that people can   
access and get involved with. The nature of the links should be  
clearly (but briefly!) stated so that people know what to expect from
that link. That will give everyone breathing room to continue to
explore, develop, and get involved.

Some very ambitious sites on that list could actually try
to implement all of the things in Roger's list.  But others may only
want to focus on one aspect of it - I think that is healthy and should
be an allowed activity under the 'umbrella'.

I also think if Red Hat wants to give away free Linux distributions,
they shouldn't wait for MS, they should just go ahead and do it.
I think I said that in another message. (Oh well, redundancy is a
good thing.)

lp