Timeline for Draft of a new policy for our site
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://pm.stackexchange.com/ with https://pm.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 14:32 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @MarkPhillips - Go for it! With everyone's input, we have a great start. We can of course continue to revise as needed. ;) | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 14:00 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | @jmort253 - I'm happy to take a stab at the FAQ. Hoping others will chime in with their feedback : ) btw, tried to get on the chat but had trouble logging in. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 13:58 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | Fair enough. The mere mention of teaming theory (in a context that makes sense), sets the answer apart from answers the "regurgitate Business 101" material (to use jmort253's phrase). @Pawel, definitely not knocking your great contribution. Very much appreciate your answers on the site. Trying to push the experiment to find the lines of definition. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 13:53 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | It seems we are converging to a solution. 1. Posting a form of Yegor's proposal as a guideline. 2. It provides transparency as to how the community will moderate/vote on answers 3. Active community members and moderators act in accordance with the guidelines. All with the goal of getting the site to where we envision it. How does that sound? | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 13:16 | history | edited | Pawel Brodzinski | CC BY-SA 3.0 | typo :) |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 10:51 | comment | added | David Espina | Pawel's right, I cannot tell you anymore from which school of thought that came. My degree is in psychology and I was heavy into behavior, social learning, and industrial/organization psych. This little piece of team degradation caused by change was discussed somewhere there but I am closing in on 25 years out of school. There would be no way I can cite it without a ton of digging, and I am not sure I'd do that on all of my answers I provide on this site. Some I do because of interest, other times I want to contribute quickly and move on. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 6:09 | comment | added | Pawel Brodzinski | @Mark - "David's answer clearly cites theory." Does it? I mean which teaming theory you have in mind? With no reference it is hard to tell. BTW: I don't say that there has to be a reference, as the answer are strongly experience-based (as it was stated before). | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 6:06 | comment | added | Pawel Brodzinski | @jmort253 - Considering that people upvote both answers you clearly see that both strategies are correct not only technically but also practically. You should likely employ the option that suits you better. The other possible situation would be when only one answer was upvoted - this way you'd get your single "correct" answer. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 2:14 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @MarkPhillips - I wrote that originally with Pawel's assistance, over a year ago. I think it's outdated and definitely needs an update. Wanna take an agile approach and just make some modifications? ;) BTW, I know you don't like chat ;) But we're both here if you're feeling up to it: PM Chat | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 2:12 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | It would seem that we would then also change the FAQ's to remove statements such as "Our theory is that project management is a very broad field; therefore, we currently allow a broad range of questions." A new FAQ would define PM more strictly. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 2:10 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | As an aside to anyone joining us, this is nothing personal against the user SBWorks, who has provided many great contributions to the site. To answer this meta question, we simply need to take a hard look at the site and put some questions/answers under the microscope. ;) | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 1:34 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | SBWorks definitely didn't cite experiences or official PMBOK or explain why his answer is right. For me personally, any one of those could be acceptable, but without it, I think this is just noise. The answer seems to repeat what Pawel already said: respect any important and long-term arrangements that were made by the PM you are substituting and doesn't really add anything additional, other than the comic. I'd be willing to try Yegor's proposal, but should we get more community support first? | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 1:13 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | There is plenty of room for theory, but it needs to have a basis in the field, and not just speculation. SBWorks provided a third answer which is even further along the spectrum: unsupported and tries to be entertaining (rather than add to the answer). That answer seems to clearly divert from the "expert" nature of the site and turns it into a message board or comments section. A policy like Yegors could give clear guidance to the community on how answers will be moderated. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 1:10 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | When you ask it like that, I have to honestly say that I'm not really sure. I'm really on the fence about this rule. The more we talk about it, the more uncomfortable I feel about enforcing it, especially when you consider how important theory is in the field. | |
| Jul 2, 2012 at 21:50 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | David's answer clearly cites theory. Pawel's does not. Would that help you decide which to employ? | |
| Jul 2, 2012 at 20:50 | history | answered | jmort253Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |