A Canadian discussion on how to use, improve, and share within the larger GovLoop Community (but open to everyone!).
A great place to start when looking to connect with other Canadian Civil Servants.
Is Govloop North Starting as a Fragmentation?
September 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm #81593
There is already one Govloop group with an excellent logo — Canadian Government 2.0. Perhaps we all would be further ahead if we approached that group to see if they would be interested in expanding their mandate/membership (I’m assuming it is focused on the federal gov’t, but maybe it isn’t), rather than starting up another group. Maybe a slight name change would be more inclusive. Their logo is instantly recognizable.
The point of this all is to get better connected with each other, and having to go to a few or several different groups to see what’s discussions are happening may not be the best approach. Subgroups make sense when there is too much activity in the larger group, but that isn’t the case at the moment.
September 28, 2009 at 4:08 pm #81609
I think we need a focus that encompasses all the public services in Canada, municipal, provincial, territorial and federal. GovLoop North will be, I hope, a place for connection across these levels. Canadian Gov 2.0 seems to me to me more directed towards connecting at a federal level.
September 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm #81607
Hi Stephan – I respectfully disagree.
There doesn’t seem to much (recent) activity in the Canadian Government 2.0 group. I posted a discussion thread asking people there to join this conversation if they wanted to, to which I received no reply, I sent a friend request to the group owner and still haven’t gotten a reply.
Now, I am by no means upset, just pointing out the differences in the community, this one was established specifically to examine if/how we could appropriate the use of the network to suit needs that we have been discussion offline for sometime. Thus my preference is to avoid migrating back to the CanGov2 group when we are established here already, besides, who do we ask, what happens if/when we get no response? Seems like added work without added value.
September 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm #81605
I’m currently in both groups. Whether I’m right or not, I associate the Canadian Government 2.0 group with web 2.0 issues, so joined this one hoping for a broader focus.
September 28, 2009 at 8:39 pm #81603
My point is about building community, especially this kind of community with multiple jurisdictions of public servants (I’ve noticed that public servants from different jurisdictions tend to be competitive rather than co-operative in their initial stance toward each other). Community-building is something that I’ve been surprised to find many people in my organization (Ontario Public Service) are not very conscious of and so not good at doing.
For this venture, making an effort to be inclusive and to actually engage people would go a long way to making this a vibrant group.
September 29, 2009 at 12:41 am #81601
Trust me I am not trying to be exclusionary, I would like to see both communities grow, and if there is some overlap we can sort it out then. =)
September 30, 2009 at 3:11 am #81599
I established the group primarily to bring people together who were interested in how we could participate in the larger community while ensuring that we can connect with fellow Canadians.
I see this space as one of the first stops on the way in, but with conversations moving well beyond the group to tackle other issues. I would encourage you all to start seeking out others to connect and share with on the network and then try to bring some of that value back into this group.
October 4, 2009 at 2:27 am #81597
Chris L. LatendresseParticipant
I originally setup Canadian Government 2.0 because I believe there needed to be a place for Canadians (and others as it is an open group) to discuss Canadian-specific information without it getting lost in the “main” Government 2.0 group. I thing your idea to broaden the mandate of the group beyond Web 2.0 is excellent, and i would propose given we have 145 members in the Canadian Government 2.0 already would be to change the name of the group, and move the Government 2.0 to a discussion group. I would also support transferring the group to a government employee if the group favours such a move, I support what is in the best interest of the group. However, my personal preference would not be to define the group according the the northernly direction from our American neighbour but rather keep “Canadian” in the group name and leave the group open to anyone that would like to join. My preference would not to fragment us among several groups thereby making it easier for us all to connect.
October 4, 2009 at 2:52 am #81595
Chris L. LatendresseParticipant
I think we can find some middle-ground here and avoid fragmenting ourselves, as I agree with you that it is not in our interest to do that, or, become exclusionary (in my opinion the group should remain open to anyone on GovLoop that has an interest in the Canadian government context and wants to contribute). The idea Nicholas has proposed to broaden the mandate is an excellent idea, and the logo’s created by Ferris are outstanding.
As I mentioned in my last post, I’m open to doing whatever is in the best interest of our community.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.