<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Question 2 of 365: What is the critical mass of a community?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://learningischange.com/2010/01/03/question-2-of-365-what-is-the-critical-mass-of-a-community/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://learningischange.com/2010/01/03/question-2-of-365-what-is-the-critical-mass-of-a-community/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:04:07 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bhwilkoff</title>
		<link>http://learningischange.com/2010/01/03/question-2-of-365-what-is-the-critical-mass-of-a-community/comment-page-1/#comment-1533</link>
		<dc:creator>bhwilkoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://learningischange.com/?p=818#comment-1533</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d never even heard of Dunbar&#039;s number. Very cool concept:&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar&#039;s_number&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I feel like this gets at your idea of 100 people in the world (or the boat&lt;br&gt;captain&#039;s anyway). So long as you have those 100 people (or perhaps 150&lt;br&gt;according to wikipedia), you can maintain the important conversations.&lt;br&gt;However, more to your point, those 100 people have to willing to probe&lt;br&gt;deeper and revise what the 100 people are connected for in the first place.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Or, perhaps those two ideas have no relationship to one another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;d never even heard of Dunbar&#39;s number. Very cool concept:<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar&#39;s_number</a></p>
<p>I feel like this gets at your idea of 100 people in the world (or the boat<br />captain&#39;s anyway). So long as you have those 100 people (or perhaps 150<br />according to wikipedia), you can maintain the important conversations.<br />However, more to your point, those 100 people have to willing to probe<br />deeper and revise what the 100 people are connected for in the first place.</p>
<p>Or, perhaps those two ideas have no relationship to one another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac Chase</title>
		<link>http://learningischange.com/2010/01/03/question-2-of-365-what-is-the-critical-mass-of-a-community/comment-page-1/#comment-1522</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac Chase</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://learningischange.com/?p=818#comment-1522</guid>
		<description>&quot;A community will thrive when people find a connection to IT and not just the people in it.&quot; Sort of. If you mean &quot;thrive&quot; in the sense of growing in thought and intellect, then I think connection is second to questioning. If we all gather around an idea that has sparked the inception of a community but don&#039;t poke at that idea, it won&#039;t thrive. Madonna gets this, right? She knows millions have gathered around the idea of &quot;Madonna,&quot; but that the idea must be revised, revisited and recreated for that community to grow and thrive. If 1983 Madonna were all the world had ever seen, there&#039;d be no Madonna in 2010 - no thriving Madonna, anyway.&lt;br&gt;From a more scientific place, I nod my head toward Dunbar&#039;s Number. While I haven&#039;t done a ton of grunt work vetting this one, I would say I find it to be true in my online web. I&#039;ve also seen it in action in professional communities and the size of a grade cohort in schools.&lt;br&gt;The thing I truly appreciate about Dunbar&#039;s Number is the idea that it puts something more tangible in the room with this somewhat squishy idea of maximum capacity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A community will thrive when people find a connection to IT and not just the people in it.&#8221; Sort of. If you mean &#8220;thrive&#8221; in the sense of growing in thought and intellect, then I think connection is second to questioning. If we all gather around an idea that has sparked the inception of a community but don&#39;t poke at that idea, it won&#39;t thrive. Madonna gets this, right? She knows millions have gathered around the idea of &#8220;Madonna,&#8221; but that the idea must be revised, revisited and recreated for that community to grow and thrive. If 1983 Madonna were all the world had ever seen, there&#39;d be no Madonna in 2010 &#8211; no thriving Madonna, anyway.<br />From a more scientific place, I nod my head toward Dunbar&#39;s Number. While I haven&#39;t done a ton of grunt work vetting this one, I would say I find it to be true in my online web. I&#39;ve also seen it in action in professional communities and the size of a grade cohort in schools.<br />The thing I truly appreciate about Dunbar&#39;s Number is the idea that it puts something more tangible in the room with this somewhat squishy idea of maximum capacity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
