This is in reply to Karen's suggestions and Andy's note.

At the last meeting, we decided that each meeting should
concentrate on a major issue. This was so that we could make real
progress and not spend each meeting deciding what to do.

Nonetheless, Andy's suggestion makes sense. My suggestion is
that we begin with the presentations Andy suggests, on the basis
of which we might be able to define a small number of subgroups
(perhaps only two: implementers and business-cases user
perspectives).
Then we might get each subgroup to tackle  the detailed issues
under each heading. We more or less did this at the first meeting,
but decided that each topic would be the focus for separate
subsequent meetings. I accept that this might be a waste of time
for those not interested in the subject of the meeting, and it might
not give us enough flexibility to take accounts of developments else
where.

So how about dividing this (and/or subsequest meetings) into 3
sessions: The first a general meeting including (in the first meeting
the presentations) and agenda -tweaking, then (if appropriate), split
 into subgroups tp tackle the details, then come together for a
report/summary/agenda for next meeting session?

I suspect that my own interest accords with Andy's; I am an
implementer/developer in the educational arena and am keen to
improve/expand  implementation of the system. So the original
suggestion that we concentrate on the technical issues suited me
fine. So also does Andy's suggestion if (as I hope we can) spend
some time on the technical issues of implementation, either as a
sub-group or in full session.

Regards to all

Graham


Dr. Graham H. Smith BA. PhD.,
Computer-Assisted Learning Consultant,
Information Systems Services,
The University of Leeds,
United Kingdom.
[log in to unmask]