User Tools

Site Tools


manchester_event

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

manchester_event [2017/05/26 10:49] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +# OpenRSA Manchester Event
 +
 +[Back to RSA networks and engagement](netengage)
 +
 +On November 20 2008 RSA ran an event in Manchester for 100 Fellows to
 +explore - among other things - how staff could best support connections
 +and communications between Fellows, and what Fellows could do for themselves.  ​
 +
 +Here’s the summary presentation:​
 +
 +## Fellows don’t need to ask permission - just do it!
 +
 +One of the strong themes was emphasis on Fellows taking responsibility for themselves
 +The RSA needs to reaffirm the fact that you don’t need permission from anywhere – John
 +Adam Street or regional committees – to interact, communicate,​ organise
 +or develop project ideas as Fellows.
 +
 +Don’t wait to be asked!  ​
 +We need to foster identity and ownership of the organisation within the Fellowship  ​
 +Part of a Fellow’s responsibility is to spread the word and be ambassadorial
 +
 +Here are extracts from reports on the RSAN site, particularly relating
 +to connections,​ communications and responsibilities
 +
 +### Responsibilities zone
 +
 +Concern over a lack of tools and a confused introduction to Fellowship  ​
 +Tools are being developed, and will take into account ideas and comments discussed today – can be developed in tandem.
 +
 +Idea that action and responsibility can be proactive and not wait for development of tools.
 +Idea of more experienced Fellows welcoming new Fellows – personal introduction  ​
 +Role of a sponsor to welcome and support a new Fellow if you nominate someone else to join
 +
 +### Connections zone
 +
 +Fellows clearly demonstrated that they do not feel that they have the requisite permissions and/ or tools to be able to act
 +for themselves in making connections and acting independently but as a
 +part of the RSA. In this respect there is a disconnect between how the
 +RSA would like Fellows to be ‘self governing’ and the perspective of
 +what is considered permissible activity on behalf of the Fellows. There
 +was some recognition that Fellows have to do more for themselves in the
 +organising and convening of ‘events’ rather than rely on the central
 +body to provide everything. Better communication between Fellows would
 +aid this process, and the RSA needs to overcome the problems presented
 +by the Data Protection Act.
 +
 +### Models for connecting
 +
 +It was thought that with a stronger more knowledgeable Fellowship, in terms of understanding the core RSA mission
 +and future direction, an environment could be created whereby Fellowship
 +activity and Connections become normal and regular activities.
 +
 +In order to achieve this then the structures which exist must not be
 +exclusive. Fellows used words such as, “Clique” and “Old Boys Club” to
 +describe the nature of some of the current Regional Committees. Another
 +Fellow described himself as being “Horrified” upon his first encounter
 +with the Regional Committee. It was also suggested that the society as a
 +whole, but particularly the Committees, were not in the least bit
 +diverse, being as they are made up of predominantly older, white men.
 +
 +Face to Face Connections were considered extremely valuable. The work of
 +VLF being mentioned as particularly valuable in the development of the
 +North West and Manchester Networks. A facilitator who knows them and can
 +make introductions was deemed as being very valuable. Whilst this is
 +most likely, at present, to be an Outreach worker, in future it could be
 +part of the role of Key Fellows within the region to broker these
 +connections.
 +
 +There is some concern, or rather a lack of understanding
 +as to what the RSA would like the Fellowship to do for themselves and
 +how that relates to the governance of local regions and their relationship to JAS.
 +
 +### Communications zone
 +
 +#### Networks platform
 +
 +Most of the people who were a part of the session groups had minimal
 +experience with the Networks platform. Either they had tried it once and
 +been disappointed or had not tried it at all. Many of the suggestions
 +were related to how they wanted to connect. ability for local
 +mapping- contacts locally, regionally nationally and internationally
 +provision of complementary communications methods through platform:
 +email, skype, linkedin etc,
 +
 +Space to initiate face to face networks from the online platform major benefit of the platform would be to
 +get global perspective on issues in addition to the face to face
 +
 +Can’t just be geographical based. It also needs to be issue based in
 +order to have a wider understanding and gain from the full breadth of
 +experience of the Fellowship
 +
 +Variety of forums to facilitate= must be maintained should there be a requirement to fellows to be involved on
 +the platform as part of their fellowship?  ​
 +Superdatabase to connect people to projects by geography and issue
 +
 +### Face-to-face
 +
 +The most salient thing to come out of both sessions
 +was the want to meet other Fellows face to face and to have meaningful
 +communication to and from other Fellows. The example of the Manchester
 +network that takes place at Urbis was cited as a good example as well as
 +the Durham network. The presence of an outreach team was seen as a
 +positive step in the right direction for facilitating these networks.
 +However, one Fellow expressed that he thought that he needed permission
 +to create a group with other Fellows. He was told that he needs no one’s
 +permission- not a committee- not JAS - in order to create a
 +group/​project etc with other Fellows.
 +
 +- [Invitationa](invitation)
 +- [Programme](programme)
 +- [Resources](resources)
 +- [Joining in the discussion](joining_in_the_discussion)
 +- [February 2009 workshop](february_2009_workshop)
 +
 +[Back to RSA networks and engagement](netengage)
  
manchester_event.txt · Last modified: 2017/05/26 10:49 (external edit)