This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.
We didn't follow instructions as asked, but instead, this group went around the table and each participant tried to rank and comment on the 7 directions.
Participant 1: Her research is immersive/remote/embodied. It needs real time and real space, and is not of an archival nature. Her relationship to technology is collaborative, she works with whole infrastructure, engages in creative work. For her relevance is 4, 7, 1. It's hard to have standards, but again, they are relevant to interaction.
Participant 2: She came ready to discuss 7, but she finds all of them relevant, they make sense, and they arise naturally out of 7. Her concern is where Bamboo should fit? Where would it help the most? Has no answer yet, but it's too big, focus has to be narrowed
Participant 3: 5 is her own interest, and an area of concern. She'd like to defend the notion that there need to be standards for the humanities, whatever any individual standard might be. Bamboo's intervention could be significant.
(At this point, we stopped going around the table, and started having a conversation)
Q: Standards can be ISO standards or best practices. Which do we mean?]
A: The expectations of what we want to do will drive the stringency of the standards.
A: This is related to industry, we want to tap into what's coming.
Comment: We need to be able to communicate with the right people in order to learn about competing standards. This addresses not only 5, since 3 and 4, also 1, underlie it.) We also need to communicate so that the best practices can be marketed.
Comment: Our notion of competition and collaboration are complex, so Bamboo can balance competition.
Q: How do we impose just enough organization to make things?
There is a connection between 1,3,7
There is also a connection between 3, 4, 5, 6. For example, if two institutions talk about shared repositories, need to agree on some standard.
2 is too narrow as written, we need a way to educate another; humanists educate technologists, they speak back and forth, and all of them speak to deans and provosts.
We have to be aware of generational change. The current players can learn from each other, and all will gain more knowledge, but they will continue to think in a way similar to the way they've been already conditioned. If we all teach new scholars, they will think in new ways, work comfortably in both skill sets so that something new that arises from both at the same time.
Comment: Advocacy comes in as well, (1), so that this can be communicated to others.
Comment: 2 makes him think that "user friendly" doesn't work. Why should this discipline be easy to pick up?
Comment: two kinds of learning: viral learnng and deep rooted knowledge
Consensus was that most, perhaps all of the directions are related. What if we think of a faceted analysis, so we can have a more productive way way of looking at them? For ex. if these directions have owners on the inside, or on the outside, we'll deal with them differently.
Comment: Direction 2 needs to take account of methodology, not just tools and tasks.
Comment: Direction 7 is the least interesting, even though it was the motivator for PB. The technical DH work is happening anyway, so will people want this from PB? We all worry about normalization, but needed services arise as long as we have communication, standards (given 1-5). The tool builders will build needed if the need emerges.