Here’s another list of Web 2.0 tools (from nptechbestpractices.pbwiki.com) and a discussion of the organizational challenges working against their adoption (from michelemartin.typepad.com/thebambooprojectblog).
[And how did I find those? By watching the RSS feed for the nptech tag in del.icio.us.]
I had a letter to the editor published in the Fall, 1996 Outlook responding to an article in the previous issue announcing the launch of www.aauw.org.
My point was that www.aauw.org should list branch home pages (there were a few out there) “to encourage sharing of information among geographically dispersed branches by enabling position papers, project plans, and program ideas to be available online.”
I’ve tried to implement that vision from the “information sharing” side — see, for example,
However, it wasn’t until this spring that a full project description took shape — see www.turntolearn.org.
On the other hand, I really don’t think that’s sufficient. Other ways to share ideas include the branch/state recognition programs (where the info really reaches very few), newsletters, displays at conventions (“Taste of Success”), state/regional/national visits to branches to pick up and pass along ideas, inter-branch meetings (and conventions) where people can simply talk to each other…
This posting was prompted because the Association is dropping the state recognition program (apparently focusing on its “award” value and ignoring its information sharing component) as of July 1, 2007. While that program was certainly flawed, I’m wondering what else could replace it. If you’re not familiar with the state application (and how much info can be crammed into it), see the AAUW NC 2006 application.
From a discussion of Web 2.0 on the NTEN discussion list, Beth Kanter referred to this post that described the use of a card game to have a community discuss various Web 2.0 tools (leave aside for a moment what that means). Now I met David Wilcox several years ago (through Terry Grunwald and RTPnet) and saw their version of the game for community technology issues, and I’ve recently connected with Beth Kanter (the co-presenter of this game) through another NTEN list.
If you’re wondering about how to introduce Web 2.0 tools (or if you even just want a list of what some of them are), take a look at the game. It might make for an interesting workshop — though I expect it’d need to be a carefully recruited audience.
On another note, as one of the commenters said, one needs to be careful about putting the tools first, instead of defining the problems that the tools might solve. But I find myself spending a lot of time trying to get across “what’s possible” — getting from where we are to where we need to be will require big shifts, and part of the shift will be increased fluency with a number of tools so that it’s increasingly common to choose the right one naturally to solve whatever problem is at hand.
Workshop in 2008, anyone?
Okay, it’s not news that I’m out of touch with the membership and the Association leaders. But this paragraph from the member center yanked my chain:
A Valentine’s Day CHALLENGE to All AAUW Members!
On February 14, call someone you know and explain why you’re so passionate about AAUWâ€Âtell them about the mission, the research, the advocacy, the philanthropy, and why you are a member. Then, invite them to join or give them the gift of membership!
I’d rewrite it as
tell them about the mission, the research, and the advocacy. Tell them why you are a member and why you donate your money and your time to this cause.
Maybe I’m just hung up on the word “philanthropy,” and need to get over the fact that we’re moving towards checkbook members and away from volunteers.
One of the bylaws changes is to have members be able to vote on issues between conventions. This would lead to “one member, one vote” with folks returning USMail ballots or voting electronically without regard to their branch membership or any “delegate” status.
This is the norm for many other national associations.
I’ve heard that this is the point where the leadership expects to see the most opposition to the changes. While it’s needed for flexibility, folks seem to be having heartburn with the idea of passing such decisions off to the membership as a whole without the chance to have floor debate, hallway discussions, onsite campaigning and such that has been an important part of conventions. I, for one, who was part of the small group that pushed the change in the degree requirement at the 2005 convention, certainly understand the benefit of this campaining — it was MUCH easier to change the minds of the folks who were at Convention and were made aware that many members cared passionately about this issue (THANK YOU Frieda Schurch; may you rest in peace Cindy Hebert). On the other hand, the VAST majority of our members just DO NOT CARE about the details of governance.
So, I think we’re struggling with
In the words of Good to Great, I think we need to address the “get the right people on the bus” at the time the board is selected. And our current process just will not continue to work as fewer and fewer members want to spend any time dealing with the picky details of the organization.