A key concept of SGD is to start each discussion group with an email to all participants, containing bio's of the other participants. So people immediately start off feeling like they know who's there. There's an emotional excitement when you get that list of bio's - you can really see how interesting and diverse the groups are.

Introductions are also a critical part of the dialogues. Our emphasis on introductions is based on grounding people - especially if the discussion is about policy debate, or public issues. Introductions help people take ownership of the fact that their opinions, beliefs and views relate directly, and vividly, to who they are, and what their experiences have been.

Another key technique to SGD is the Featured Discussions - highlighting quality discussions, and allowing participants to vote on good content. Why?

The SGD technique was developed as a strategy to raise the quality of online discussion. What does high quality discussion look like? Unless you're a member of the WELL or Echo, it's unlikely you've ever seen it on the Web (let alone in the culture at large). Highlighting featured discussions is a powerful way to not only help participants imagine what it could be, but aspire to have their own discussions featured. Like many features of SGD, it's based on the idea of asking/inspiring people to be their best selves, and providing all kinds of positive reinforcement when they act in that spirit. It's "modeling" and incentive. There's also a secondary reason, which is that the featured discussions are an easy way in for the casual reader who wants a quick snapshot of the dialogues without having to tunnel into the hundreds of messages created by members of an average group.

The Small Group Dialogues often last 2-4 weeks. The duration of the dialogues contrasts to mainstream practice of online community, where you want people to be participating, indefinitely.

Our observation was that the generalized bulletin boards you find on most sites are chaotic, and anonymity is exalted to such an extreme that there's no accountability. There's a revolving door psychology where people are coming and going at random. You can arrive today for the first time to a community, and there will be people who have been there interacting for months, so you're already at a disadvantage. If you wanted to create a structure that maximized chaos, and had the lowest level of accountability, this is what you would create.

What we proposed instead was, set up a small group, so people know who's going to be there; and give it a limited time span, so that people are starting together, and therefore on an equal playing field, and people are ending together, so they have a chance to have some closure. You're asking them to make a much deeper commitment than they do in a general bulletin board.

You had Web Crossing build the latest version of SGD. Why Web Crossing?

We started out with as comprehensive list as we could of the features we wanted the platform to have. We then had a software shop price out how much it would cost to build it from scratch and there was no prospect of getting that amount. So, we took the spec and began talking with the handful of companies that had: a platform that our features could be built on top of; in-house personnel who could do the work; and a business interest in the software, and what it could do, and how it might be marketed.

All of those three things came together nicely with Web Crossing. And we were lucky to work with a small team of really qualified developers who "got" what we were trying to do.

Which functionalities are essential to the SGD software?

The software is designed to allow for multiple small groups of dialogues to be take place simultaneously - which enables both an experience of participating in one in-depth dialogue, while being part of a much larger process.

The features that allow the software to be very scalable is can give us snapshots of activity, and to get flags when there are things we need to know about -- whether warning signs or things that are really wonderful. It also allows participates to flag content for us.

The financial advantage is obvious: there can be a significant cost saving by having a small number of monitors who can keep an eye on many groups at a time, rather than facilitators who need to spend more time with fewer people. Since scalability was a high priority of our newest version of the software, we built in a long list of "backend" functionality that automates many of the monitor and administrator tasks.

Why don't you use hosts, or facilitators in the Small Group Dialogue?

In our first experiments, we found that once we signaled that we were willing to intervene, some group members would turn to us every time a conflict developed, and we felt we had undermined the group's confidence in its ability to handle conflicts without turning to us as the authority figures.

We decided to stop intervening and see what would happen. In most cases, when conflicts developed, members of the group would step in to mediate. They were usually successful in getting people to back off, and, as a bonus, it built a much stronger group identity. We had a crisis, and we got through it together. Our role evolved into highlighting some of those "mediations" in what was then called the "featured posts" section of the site -- and provide models to show other groups how that could work.

Having said that, it's important to note that I don't see minimal intervention as essential to the technique. We're still testing these ideas and, although I've seen wonderful results from this model, we've identified several drawbacks, which might be addressed by modest and even full-scale facilitation. We have a couple of projects on the horizon that will provide opportunities to experiment with a range of facilitation styles, from modest to very active.

How do you hope SGD will be used in the future?

Although we think SGD can be a powerful tool in a range of places, in the immediate future we're focusing on media companies and issue-oriented non-profits. We're doing a project for the Pew Charitable Trusts where small group dialogues will be one component of a national effort to increase civic engagement by teenagers. We're talking with a non-profit about facilitated dialogues on the sensitive issues of church and state. We're also talking with a high-profile TV series about dialogues on issues that their viewers care about (which could eventually become a series of books), a couple of news/public affairs cable networks about replacing or supplementing their online bulletin boards, and a public radio series about discussions for their loyal listeners. We are open to entertaining applications others may have for using this tool.

How is Web Lab financially supported or sustained?

The history has been a combination of foundation funding, some occasional private donors, and a small number of contracts. We've received support from the MacArthur Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the AOL/Time Warner Foundation, among other funders.

The direction we are headed in is -- while keeping some foundation money in the mix -- potentially really expanding contracted services, where we become essentially producers of online dialogues. We know how to do it, and that's something we can contract to other people to do that for them. And we can deliver a level of quality that they can't see at other places, so there's a real value proposition there.

Another category for revenue is partnerships - where we, in alliance with a for-profit entity, decide there are things that each of us can bring to a joint project. For example, doing a series of short-term online discussions about really compelling issues that could become the makings of books, or a series of books - and do that with a partner who has a higher visibility.

Secondarily, there's the possibility of some kind of package of software license plus consulting to get other people up to speed on how to use the tool themselves.

You've crossed over from film and television to online community. Why?

It's a very personal reason, which has to do with what I set out to accomplish when I first became a documentary filmmaker.

The core of what happens in a good documentary film is the same as the core of a user-generated Web site. People begin by reflecting on their own experience - then when some of those experiences are reflected on the site, new visitors are energized and inspired by other people's stories, and want to tell their own stories. It becomes a self-generating process.

The turning point for me was in the 1996 season, when we decided to go several steps further with the POV website. The event that was a wake-up call was the site that tied into the film Maya Lin, A Strong, Clear Vision. That site was very simple in concept - we asked people to come into the site, and tell a story about how their lives have been impacted by the Vietnam War.

It succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. It took on a life that I could never have imagined. It's moving, agonizing stuff - people really baring their souls, challenging each other, getting into conflicts and then coming out on the other side… Really pushing each other, challenging each other's assumptions. Mostly a respectful atmosphere - people stepping in, and self-moderating.

For me, it was a realization: If my life's work is about finding ways to engage people on public and personal issues, and if this medium is waiting out there to be shaped, what an incredible moment to seize.