Feedback on the Open meeting
Post categories: open standards
| 10:58 UK time, Thursday, 27 August 2009
I promised to report back after the 1st Online 'Open' meeting which we held on Friday 14th August. Many of your comments have struck a chord. For one thing, we should certainly have clarified that the 'open' meeting was with industry players, regulators, suppliers and stakeholders rather than with users of 91Èȱ¬ Online.
As it's generally hard to get things right first time round, I was reassured as I walked into to hear genuine support for the initiative we were taking. Looking through the constructive feedback we've received since, many found it helpful and insightful. This was the first event that tried to outline what 91Èȱ¬ Online is going to focus on over the next 6 - 9 months and we plan to do more in future.
External linking came up. We'd already taken steps to expand the ways in which 91Èȱ¬ Online links to other websites and click throughs have been running at 10 -12million per month. We want to establish new and richer connections to the wider web where they are editorially relevant and meet our public purposes. We know that our users want us to do this and it's a process that we take very seriously.
I know we inevitably disappointed some who attended. Some areas - particularly formal learning - were covered in insufficient detail for people who feel the 91Èȱ¬ competes with their businesses in this area. In this case, it was because we are currently assessing the range of what the 91Èȱ¬ provides to support learning by children and teenagers, in order to shape a discussion with the 91Èȱ¬ Trust later this year which will inform our ongoing strategy.
Unsurprisingly - given the audience who attended - there were questions and concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of the new media Approved Supplier List (ASL). This provided an opportunity to explain that we are currently reviewing the ASL, a shared, central repository of information - where they are, what they do, what they have worked on in the past and so on - on external suppliers for the use of 91Èȱ¬ commissioners.
I want to emphasise that this review, which will be completed by early next year, is aimed specifically at 91Èȱ¬ Online. We are working towards establishing a clear and concise process which enables the 91Èȱ¬ to commission the best output from the best qualified supplier for any given project. Since online does involve a level of technical complexity, we want external suppliers to have access to clear information about what we require, so that the process is as efficient and transparent as it can possibly be. Through working closely with suppliers, we aim to use their feedback to streamline the process for outsourcing content and services.
It is business as usual whilst the review is conducted and we continue to commission content and services across 91Èȱ¬ Online from a wide range of supplier companies.
Seetha Kumar is Controller, 91Èȱ¬ Online.
- Watch the videos of the Open day here.
Comment number 1.
At 27th Aug 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:My emphasis - "I know we inevitably disappointed some who attended. Some areas - particularly formal learning - were covered in insufficient detail for people who feel the 91Èȱ¬ competes with their businesses in this area. In this case, it was because we are currently assessing the range of what the 91Èȱ¬ provides to support learning by children and teenagers, in order to shape a discussion with the 91Èȱ¬ Trust later this year which will inform our ongoing strategy."
Personally the 91Èȱ¬ (Trust) should just tell commercial companies were they can get off in relation to learning and education - people should not have to pay to learn, it's as simple as that - the 91Èȱ¬'s responsibility in this respect was a founding part of what the 91Èȱ¬ "Is", as anyone who cares to read the 91Èȱ¬'s Royal Charter will see. These commercial companies can always go and find another market to 'exploit', or indeed become an accredited supplier to the 91Èȱ¬, after all the 91Èȱ¬ can't - easily - change it's Charter like a commercial company's management/board meeting can decide to move into another market.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 2nd Sep 2009, wwdlu101 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Feb 2010, gerry wrote:hello. i'm new to all this. i'm not sure about them saying they're going to commission this n that, my experience today is they don't seem very interested in peoples ideas. if the beeb is going webwide then everyone out there is used to being fairly informal, creative, producing n learning in a self-evolving paradigm. right? so the beeb seems to be a kind of huge money/business orientated civil service?? am i wrong? me i think there's a distinct lack of education across the board; if the beeb can counter that then i think i'm enthusiastically with them. but do you think they listen to us? gerry.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 12th Feb 2010, gerry wrote:hm. all the blogs i just looked at are 'closed'. an my comment just a moment ago has disappeared. am i supposed to be terribly careful? in what i say/how i say it? cos if it gets too much what we want they close the coments down? well why is the beeb looking to go webwide then? its a lot more upfront n in your face than here.
i be back tomorrow. got to work out the bbc!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 30th Mar 2010, U14402580 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 4th Aug 2010, David Lency wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)