there is a difference between "SWC Reachback" and "SWC reacharound".

There is a bit of a distinction though between "on demand" and "thoughtful progression". This maybe something a little different then what we normally do. Whereas we might get a flurry of responses to a thread starter based on current interest, relevancy or the chance that those with subject knowledge happen to be looking at the right time and the thread topic cues them - this is more like what might be ascribed to the Knowledge Networks that act as both a repository for information related to their theme, or a HSOC (Home Station Operations Command/Center) that is staffed to answer problems, track down answers and coordinate things coming in from the field.

I'm not saying we can't do that - but I don't think its the SWC strength. Some of this happens with specific targets in mind - my connection with MarcT while I was deployed, and me pinging him for answers is kind of like this.

The SWC strength I think is more akin to a think tank where because of its diversity in membership keeps turning the facets of the cube and comments on the uniqueness of each new turn - most times we never get to a consensus where we see 6 sides each of its own solid color - and even if we do, we gain new members who take a look and mix chocolate in our peanut butter - and sometimes because of new experiences and through contact our own opinions/perspectives evolve, what was written on an old post may differ widely from - this is a strength - but it requires time and diverse participation.

The SWC is a social entity - there is no "product" or "deliverable" - its more akin to a running discourse - this is why nichols mentioned the "frost call" I think.

Showing volume in a short term turn-around will require the questions to be something that people have already done some thinking on - which could lead to just posting hyper-links to existing threads, cut-n-paste, or articulating existing positions.

An alternative would be to make sure that SWC members and lurkers are encouraged to post - I still feel like there are guys/gals out there who have unique and fresh thoughts, but have declined from posting.

Since this will be covered by the media - it will add another difference. While we are all aware that some of the lurkers/non-posting members are media we've largely been free to ignore it in terms of the sense of purpose to which we discuss things.

All of this is OK - it just changes the nature of the conversation some . I bring it up because its about managing expectations. It will be difficult to appreciate the quality of an ongoing, evolving conversation in a small period of time. People use various combinations and proportions of reading, thinking, writing as they consider things then reply.

If the questions are thread quality - meaning they evolve beyond a page in responses and generate a lot of views with a reasonably diverse set of opinions weighing in with thoughtful replies which generate further thought, etc - it might be interesting to see where that goes over time - a day, a week, a month? The challenge would be finding questions that are both thought provoking intellectually and emotionally to draw quick responses across the diverse membership while at the same time being of sufficient depth to sustain a longer conversation of greater substance.

I'm interested to see how this will go.

Best Regards Rob