Attendees:  Marina Arseniev (UC Irvine), Dan Brint (SUNY), Christian Johansen (Penn State), Wayde Nie (McMaster), Piet Niederhausen (Georgetown), Vinay Varughese (Weill Cornell Medical College)

Agenda:

• Personas: What target audiences should ITANA be communicating with?
  • Draft list of ITANA communications personas
• Channels: What channels would you like ITANA to use to communicate with you? (see poll)
• Topics: What topic areas are you most interested in seeing ITANA content about? (see poll)
• Sharing: ITANA depends on its members for content to share (see poll)
• Your campus: What is your architecture group's communication strategy within your campus or system?

In the meeting we referred to a flash poll with three questions. Poll results are attached to this page. The questions were:

1. How would you like to regularly find out about ITANA activities and content?
2. When you go to the ITANA mailing list, web page, or wiki, what are you most looking for
3. Do you think any of these factors have prevented you from contributing your own ideas or sharing materials with ITANA in the past?
   Notes:

Personas

• Reviewed the personas draft
• General agreement that these personas are appropriate
• Discussion of personas used by universities for marketing (students, alumni, parents, sports fans, etc.)
• Discussion of how personas could be used to target IT or EA communications within a campus
• Discussion of how architecture groups communicate, for example, using the PMO as a channel to reach projects

Channels

• The results for question 1 suggest that:
  • Members rely heavily on the email list
  • Members tend to reserve Facebook more for personal use
• Concern about email not providing a good sense of continuity or ongoing discussion threads, because for the recipient it's mixed in with all the email they receive every day
• The poll question did not ask about a "discussion forum" or "private social media" option, along the lines of Basecamp or Central Desktop
• Many on the call expressed desire for an alternative where
  • Ongoing discussion threads are easily visible
  • Recent contributions, especially shared documents, can be easily found
  • It is easier to get a sense of who the peer group is

Content

• The results for question 2 suggest that:
  • Many members come to ITANA for architectural resources such as frameworks, reference models, tools
  • Few members come to ITANA for specific technical solutions
  • Many members also come to ITANA for various kinds of peer interaction
• Discussion of how best to share artifacts, reference materials
• Comments that it's not clear how to find these materials now; finding them in past emails isn't ideal, not sure what is in the wiki
• We reviewed the just-added Recently Discussed wiki page and agreed this is a good step, though there may still be too high a barrier to actually add content

Sharing

• The results for question 3 show a mix of factors
• Discussion about the time required to share -- poll respondents emphasize this, but if one has something to share, really most of the work is already done
• Discussion about the wiki as a reference resource; comments that a really structured, useful wiki may take more effort to maintain than ITANA can sustain
  • The "1/9/90 rule" says 1% of users will write, 9% will edit, and 90% will only read
• Discussion of how an online "space" other than email (see Channels above) might help promote content sharing
• Desire for peer review in a "safe" way:
  • Some assurance of privacy, rather than posting an incomplete document publicly
  • Some assurance of receiving feedback, rather than posting with no result
  • Some assurance that all contributions are valued