Re: More on Writing

[TQNELSON@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/2/1999 1:35:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jmegogue@wanadoo.fr writes:

<< Finally the Del's posting shows the difficulty of communication between
 people who never met and who do not share the same frame of reference. 
  >>

Jean Marie gives many valuable contributions. I will offer some 
clarifications. First, I established/led my first "distance team" in the 
mid-1980's while serving as director of the U.S. Civil Service Reform project 
("PACER SHARE"), it had nothing to do with education (i.e., a "school") but 
was industrially based on process improvement. Linkage was via many modes 
from teleconferencing, to video conferencing, to online communications. Some 
was synchronous, some asynchronous. And it worked (the team successfully 
completed the project). The key, as Jean Marie notes, was that the team did 
share a common frame of reference. We had "operational definitions" for EVERY 
key term and EVERY key component of those definitions (it's called a "Data 
Dictionary"). Those definitions and many of the documents, we're NOT in 
narrative English (which was never designed for such "boundary spanning 
communication") but were developed using the system's design, definition, 
diagramming and communication theory of Ed Yourdon and Tom DeMarco (et alii). 
We still teach that technique in our classes.

As far as Jean Marie's statement: ""Phaedrus" (subtitle: "About Knowledge") 
is a fundamental book of philosophy. I understand that many people do not 
enjoy reading such books,"

Well, my first degree is in Philosophy and I love it (I view what we do here 
as, first, an act of philosophizing, and, second, working toward 
realization/actualization of those philosophical truths we have discovered. 
However, I am not, I agree, a "Platonist." Based in a combination of 
Aristotelian, Existentialist, Essentialist principles (Capra, Boehm, even 
Einstein are in this approach, along with Kierkegard, and IMHO [after 
dialogues with WED on this subject] so was WED) vs. the Platonic approach.

I believe that Jean Marie's position on communications IS VALID IF we 
restrict the distance contact to verbal-visual, linguistic communication 
only. Adding today's technology, however (or combining some of it, as I have 
even in the past) says, "Nope, we can form/do/have teams, get commitment, 
share vision, passion, and action, and celebrate together, all at a distance 
without having ever "physically" met.

Who is right? Where's the data? Perhaps it is worth a spin-off to a sub DEN 
net to explore it by actually designing and conducting experiments where data 
can be collaboratively developed/shared by all. The potential benefits WITH 
EITHER RESULT would be enormous. 

I ask Jim Clausen, as the DEN administrator (Jim also teaches online courses 
on WED's teachings), what he thinks about that as a possibility?

Del Nelson
American River College
When "We, the People..." have been replaced
by dollars, profits, and greed,
It is time to start over

[Moderator's Note:  I can offer verbal support only...  ;-)  If such an effort
were mounted - I can provide a platform, but little direct assistance.

I will, however, echo Del's comments.  I have also held membership in virtual
teams since the mid 80's -- except mine has been *all* electronic.  Del's
"if" conditions for working are accurate as well as his (and JMG's) "if"
conditions for not working.

Virtual teaming *is* hard work, but in today's geographically dispersed
and cost conscious environment - I see little alternative.  Expect to see
more of it in business and education.
===========================================================================