In this thread there was some discussion of where we're at on Underguide issues. Sprout suggested setting up a page to list them. I thought it was a good idea. I can only do this from my perspective and I don't pretend to have read all the backlog. These are the issues that I see as undecided, or more or less decided but not quite. It would be good to cross some of these off the list and carry on discussing the more difficult issues. Maybe others see some of them as having been decided already. I've included a couple of links to where things are being discussed but may not have them all. If you think there are other issues or thread links that should be here, or any that shouldn't, please let me know.

The sections in italics are the Italics' responses. Thanks Anna and Ashley.

Selection of entries

• How UG entries are chosen/nominated/voted into the UG has yet to be decided. The options seem to be a proposing and seconding, (plus possible thirding), system for selecting nominated entries or a voting system with any number or a limited no. of yeas and nays up to a given deadline or up to a given total. As per GTB's UG Processes

  Inhouse we prefer the nominating/seconding system. it allows for constructive feedback and also allows for generous debate should a thorny issue arise. Voting has two drawbacks - it doesn't allow for feedback (see BotF voting system) and it just adds one more layer to the administration of the project.

• Will Miners have quotas? Quotas for nominating, or voting on nominated entries or a quota for both. If yes, what is the quota. Will anyone monitor this or is it left to Miners to keep to voluntarily? Will there be a minimum no. of picks/votes a Miner will be asked to commit to? Will there be a minimum no. of subbings for those who volunteer for that aspect of mining?

  Quotas seem to work for both our subs and scouts schemes. To keep tabs one of the miners would maintain a calendar of who picked/subbed which entry and when.

• What role do the italics have in acceptance of entries? (There is a question of the role of the UG Persona in selection/acceptance of entries, that's included in the next section. )

  Our role will at first have to be limited due to our other administrative/editorial obligations. We would, however, have to look and give the final OK to any UG entry. This is because if any entry is going to be quasi-official, it will have to fit the wider BBCi Guidelines for legal reasons etc.

• When entries are accepted and are listed as pending who decides on which go to the front page when. Will, and if so how will, any overlap with the Post and GAG use of such entries be taken into account. It's been suggested that a six month gap between presentation in either of these and the UG might be good.

  The UG will be a quasi-official part of h2g2 and as such, when an entry enters the UG, it will have to have a status whereby any alterations can only be made by in-house staff. This is for legal requirements and applies to the Edited Guide too

This thread has discussions with Anna relating to selection and italic involvement.
Ashley's request for an update on the Underguide

Role of Core Members/ UG Persona

• I'm unclear whether there is any consensus on the extent of the role of Core Members/UG Persona. Are they purely administrative or are they the Underguide Editor or something in between. They officially scout entries and return subbed entries to the Towers. GTB's outline of UG processes suggests they 'review the subbed copy and the discussion thread, ascertain that everything is in order, and copy the GuideML from the subbing copy into the Recommended Copy, over which only the UG Persona has editing rights'. Can they also reject entries they think are substandard at this point?

The UG Editor persona is vital for those tasks which have to be completed by us (eg making copies of entries etc). We could only accept entries from that persona because we'd hate to have EG and UG confused in the inhouse filing system. The UG Editors would also, we envisage, be responsible for the day-to-day administration of any yahoo group that is set-up and to approach the in-house staff with entries that have been 'mined' or real problems in the group/scheme.

• Do they have a deciding voice on marginal entries, where voting reaches an impasse, or where miners start hitting each other with their candles?
  
  

  Absolutely - if there is a real problem, then they can approach the inhouse team - this is why we want the persona to be in the hands of 1-3 people and no more. This is also why we like the nominating scheme because this gives scope for some really great discussion.

• Do they accept Miners' volunteer applications?

  Yes

• Do they keep an eye on Miner behaviour down the tunnels?

  Absolutely - but this is the case for the whole community. The UG will be a microcosm of h2g2. The trouble makers (and there will be some) will bubble to the surface and be dealt with. Also, you will have full access to the Yikes! button.

Range of available writing and APR

• Ashley (I think) wasn't altogether happy with the name Alternative Peer Review. No alternative suggestions have received much support yet.

  How about 'The Underguide Review Forum'? It does exactly what it says on the tin.

• General consensus seems to be that any entry except EG suitable entries and those marked 'not for review' are on limit to Miners - regardless of previous use in the Post or CAC or the presence of the author. Are any tunnels, eg journals and forum postings, off limit to Miners?

  Always liaise with the Post and CAC out of mutual respect and to avoid any conflict.

• There is also general consensus that all UG entries go through APR. How long do they need to be in APR before they're available for nomination? GTB has suggested a week.
  
  

  All entries should go the Review Forum. In case of exceptional circumstances (Ben knows ) , in which case ask for our advice - we're here to make this work too!

• Are we bothered by duplication of entries in the UG?

  Only copies of UG entries should be edited... this is fundamental to how the whole system works. If a Researcher doesn't like the edit, then they have the freedom to post a link to the original.

Volunteer group.

• Who runs the volunteer group? Core Members or h2 staff? Other?

  We think that the 1-3 people who have the UG Editor persona should also run the group. We don't have as much time as we would like, so the more you guys can handle, the better for us and the scheme in the long run.

• I think there's consensus, with some reluctance, that the group should be a closed group. Is there any disagreement on that?

  It's always better to have the groups closed as you will need to discuss some issues that are a little delicate for an open forum.

Archiving/searching issues.

• How will Underguide entries be shown to be Underguide entries? Is there any alternative to the simple prefix? If we use a prefix what will it be? UG has been suggested, plus points are it's short and recognisable to h2g2ers, drawback is it won't mean much to outsiders.

  This is a 'status' issue which we are currently looking into.

• How will UG entries be archived? Officially or unofficially or both? Presumably official archiving would be into the current h2 categories. If we have unofficial archiving what are the categories going to be? By type of writing, poetry, prose etc. or subject or both. Where would you put a nonsense poem on ducks? Jodan has made a start on this but it's difficult to get very involved without knowing the extent of official archiving there will be.
  
  

  UG entries can be categorised in the 'World of h2g2' section of the system. Keep the system as loose and link free as possible to allow for growth and the state of mind of click weary Researchers.

• I suggested on the 'What Volunteers Do' page that a subbing Miner might include a list of keywords at the end of a piece for search purposes since UG style entries might talk all around a subject without ever naming it. It would then never be picked up by someone searching on the subject matter. Is this worth pursuing?

  Leave this for the moment while we look at other 'status' possibilities.

Most discussion on categories is at the MSN group.

The Underguide page

Extent of Miners' Role/Other volunteer roles

There seems to be general consensus that Miners 'scout' and sub. Someone had the idea of author mentors. Do we want to go ahead with that, is it a Miners role, is it another volunteer group? If the latter would it be by volunteering or by invitation (by who?).

Keep it simple and let the system evolve - by over-structuring the idea, you restrict development and creativity.

Guidelines

My understanding is that there is some consensus on minimal guidelines with examples to illustrate standards, but that there is still some uncertainty on this. Also that GuideML will be required but although English usage would be the default there is no requirement for it in entries

The most recent discussion on guidelines is here attached to Deidzob's draft guidelines page.

This needs careful work. There will have to be some quality control, the UG must not become a dumping ground for any old rant/ random piece of poetry. UG entries (like every other quasi-official page) will have to be legally sound etc. These Guidelines are not restrictive. You will also need to debate swearing.

Relationship with the Post and AGG/GAG/CAC

Discretion, Intersection or Union?

All three.

A page of Underguide links

There's a guide to backlog on MSN but I found I an h2 list useful in doing the volunteer pages. So in case anyone else might find it of use; various Underguide related links.