Nomination: populate quality review group for User research

[iceLearn]

Problem

Crowd Research Collective is full of ideas and designs which required user experience testing, user experience design and user research to understand better of new ideas. Most of the ideas will need to review in that aspects and currently User research group in quality review is empty.

My Proposal

I would like to nominate my self and Angela ( currently not in Github but a member of our collective) in populating this empty group.
At the same time I invite any individual who might be interested in this self-nominate or nominate others appropriately.

Nomination paragraphs are follows ;

@iceLearn has led many user research in the past for this project ( some examples Link 0 Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 and very much interested in the field. Her ongoing PhD is intercepting with HCI and has contributed towards many other projects in this area.

@Angela has done many MOOCs in HCI related courses and has contributed collaborating with me in this field in many instances though out this project. She has the interest in the subject and I believe she will be a good candidate for the group.

---

Use comments to share your response or use emoji 👍 to show your support. To officially join in, add yourself as an assignee to the proposal. To break consensus, comment using this template. To find out more about this process, read the how-to.

[qwertyone]

BREAKING CONSENSUS: I have to ask -- the design quality group seems to handle many functions and it should. However the following question is why I need to break consensus. Is it necessary to topically subset the quality review group this early when the actual work demands are unknown? Would it be preferential to let the work demands split the group?

I anticipate that the separation of the quality design group by topic without the knowledge of the actual work demand this early might create a specialization that will bias action and decision making towards that given topic without proper merit -- UX, IxD, Survey Design, Information Architecture are all potentially alternative groups which might arise. As this is the potential case, I would propose that this division of labor is postponed until at which some time when the work demands require the benefits of specialization. The diversion of resources and responsibilities being taken from the main Quality Design Review group too early might compromise and complicate the real needs of the group. The specialization might be better merited when 5 or more projects arise concurrently whereby the specialist domain knowledge might serve to speed the quality review process. To address the populating of members into the groups, I would encourage that the nominations here stand but instead fall under the design quality review team.

[markwhiting]

@qwertyone is a group that was among those voted on as part of our governance, so this is not being introduced by @iceLearn here. You can see which groups we have here.

Also, nominations are not proposals in the normal sense, so I think we've basically agreed that they can not have consensus broken on them (I know that aspect is not what you were braking on per se)

I do agree with your point, we shouldn't make groups we don't need, and perhaps there's an opportunity to update our policy to reflect that somehow. I think if you wanted to look into that, a separate proposal would probably be the best option.

[qwertyone]

I read that document before I wrote this and after I did not see the topical groups formally identified within a specific proposal that clarified their mission, members, duties and expectations.

[markwhiting]

Yeah, I think thats something to be built out through a proposal, or perhaps something that we might argue should not be built out, but instead simplified to fewer groups (which could also be a proposal).

I think, if I remember correctly, the groups are loosely based on groups we had previously had.

[iceLearn]

@qwertyone hope your questions were clarified, I do understand your point - demand for groups based on the projects, however, I belive as we discussued thoughtout the governance process, it will be more benifical to the group of having already defined team to handle some of the work which has clear objectives. Such as for user research stuff, design stuff, operational stuff etc..

[qwertyone]

@iceLearn I agree with having a group readily identified within the larger groups to adapt with demand.

[iceLearn]

I will remove the label question in this, following up the meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILc0EBkiKzg&feature=youtu.be , I belive the proposal has consesnus to go to a vote.

Therefore will add the label voting and add names to vote.

[iceLearn]

Vote @iceLearn (Dilrukshi)

This vote is for @iceLearn (dilrukshi) to be added to the User Research QR team.

Vote for by using thumbs up on this comment. Vote against by using thumbs down on this comment

[iceLearn]

Vote Angela Richmond-Fuller (@arichmondfuller)

This vote is for @iceLearn (dilrukshi) to be added to the User Research QR team.

Vote for by using thumbs up on this comment. Vote against by using thumbs down on this comment