h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i doubt not enough work would ever causea problem Ashley. i think the advantages of having 3 editors is that, if there were 2 who had a major over an issue, it could be settled by the third person. Also, i think one of the thoughts were that there would be 2 editorial editors, and 1 administrative editor.

spook

I'm still against that idea, of assigning particular roles to each editor. Spreading the roles to the editors ensures reliability. If the administrative editor gets sick and needs the other 2 to pick up the slack, and they're editorial (Don't know administrative) then problems could arise.

Not to mention competition for certain roles. No, it's cleaner just to assign all the editors the same or similar roles

>>> it's cleaner just to assign all the editors the same or similar roles


Absolutely, this is pivotal. It has also been proven to work (cf The Post).


I'm still largely unconvinced by the three required editors. If two editors can't iron out issues, then there is a problem. If such a situation arises, then the UG Editors should do what we do - open it up to the rest of the group (in your case the Miner's). I'm not saying that there isn't room for more UG Editors in the future, I just don't see the need for more than two now.

I'm posting this to the egroup for the benefit of Ben.

it's easier to start with a system of 3 and work on that system from the start then to start with 2 and then change the system to accomodate another.

spook

Two editors will be fine I suspect.

I don't see why it would be difficult to have more later if necessary. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of candidates.

Sprout

my reasoning for 3 instead of 2 is this:

1 editor - i am the only editors of the Spaced Out Guide. Things get done straight away. no conflict or anything.
2 editors - if they have a dispute, then they would have to bring it to the rest of the group. if the group are split, what do you do? are you causing conflict?
3 editors - conflict between 2, third setlles dispute. dispute ended quickly, everyhting kept editorially internally.


that's my reasoning for 3.

spook

What if all three want different things? Bring in ?

Sprout

I can see disadvantages and advantages for both suggestions regarding the number of editors, and to be honest, the arguments seem at first glance to be equal on both sides.

Perhaps taking the advice of someone who is experienced in these matters would be prudent (ie Ashley).

However, I am interested to hear what the rest of the miners feel

Mort

This is Ben's post on the MSN group for those who haven't the benefit of joining (Slightly edited because of all the swearing ). She was responding to Ashley on an update of the situation-

For what its worth, I suspect that whether two is optimal or three is
optimal depends on the individuals concerned. However - we won't know
*who* until we know *what* so - without knowing who the UG Editors will
be, I am going to put in my two cents' worth for two editors.

Here's why.

1) Liaising between two people is significantly easier than liaising
between three.

Two people are much more likely than three people to be on IM at the
same time (MSN, AIM, ICQ, whatever) and be able to have quick chats
about something and reach an agreement. I speak from real experience
here; GTB and I organised the whole of the (now sadly defunct) Rolling
Meet on MSN with a total of three (count them) phone calls, and one of
those was to postpone the RM. However other people we wanted to chat to
about the RM, (like MoG, for instance) were much harder to see online at
the same time that we were both online.

Even if the UG Editors don't use IM, but use email, you can have quite a
fast chat between two people by email, if you have to keep three people
in the loop, then the whole thing slows down.

2) It requires *more* commitment

This is a subtle one. If you know that you are 50% of the team, then
you will know that you have to pull your weight. You will know that you
really cannot take a couple of months off to do a Rolling Meet, (for
instance) and expect to keep the UG Ed role. If you are only 33.3% of
the team, then the temptation to say, "well, it is only the Easter
Vacation, it's only three weeks, guys" will be much higher.

3) It will be more interesting

Let's face it, one entry a week, selected by one Miner and gem polished
by another Miner is not going to keep the UG Eds frantically busy. If
there are three UG Eds I think that there is a real danger that they
will get bored, and that they will not find the job as fulfilling as
they hope, and that they will not build up experience very quickly
either.

4) Conflicts will be easier to resolve

This sounds an odd one, at first glance it would seem that having three
gives a clear resolution of conflicts with a 2:1 majority; but with
three UG Eds, if they don't work well, then two of them could end up
consistently ganging up on the other, and, basically, bullying them.
This way if there IS an irresolvable difference of opinion then the
casting vote goes to the Italics; this has two advantages, firstly the
Italics are actually pretty experienced in running the site and,
secondly, they will agree to support whatever decision they make. With
three UG Eds you could have a situation where two of them thought that
publishing - oh, I don't know, Seven Card W**kstain, was a good idea.
The Italics would only over-rule them anyway, and there is suddenly
conflict between the UG Eds and the Italics. With two UG Eds, the
Italics have the casting vote, no-one feels ganged up upon, and the
final decision is - er - final.

5) Accounts and duties shared between two are proven to work

Why make the same old mistakes when we don't need to?

We know it works with the Post. We know it works with other shared
accounts. And from my own experience I have been a member of two shared
accounts, (The Rolling Meet, and the Willem Love Collective) and the RM
one was much easier, even though I probably annoyed GTB a lot by leaving
the preferences set to Brunel, when he prefers Classic! Essentially,
this is about logistics, and if organising logistics between two has
four "difficulty points" then organising logistics between three has
*nine* "difficulty points."

6) The Italics advise us to have two not three UG Eds

Lets face it, one of the things that the Italics DO know about is
running h2g2.

I may take pot-shots at them occasionally when I am in a bad mood, or if
I get particularly frustrated about some aspect of running a website
that I am professionally qualified to comment on. But this team
probably know more about running an on-line community than just about
any other team on the planet. And I mean that quite literally. The
only exception that springs to mind is www.thewell.com, and I don't know
enough about The Well to know which of the two teams are "better" at
managing their respective communities.

So there you are; 6 cents, apparently.

Once again, Ashley, thanks for keeping me in the loop.

Some other questions:

1) What format is the voting taking? My preference is for a "secret
ballot" ie those currently registered as Miners send an email to Ashley
with their votes.

2) When do nominations close? (I am dithering about standing, and
want to know who else is standing)

3) Who is already nominated / standing?

4) Can any miner nominate people? Can I nominate Jodan, GTB, Waz, and
fwt please (if any of them haven't been nominated already)? Pretty
please? Buy ya cheesecake, if I can!

5) Are people standing as individuals or on a joint ticket?
(Individuals is probably simpler).

6) How many votes does each miner get? (My recommendation is for as
many votes as there are UG Ed roles, ie two if there are two, three if
there are three, otherwise you could end up with a situation where out
of 15 votes, someone gets 12 and the other person gets say 2, which
makes for unstable elections).

That's about it, from this end of a very narrow and expensive modem
cable.

Thanks again Ashley, for emailing this to the group.

Ben

--------------------------------------

I'll post my responses next

I'm opposed to two editors, but will submit to the majority of the miners. If that situation occurs and two editors is decided, then I suggest a sort of Junior Editor (I think I'd prefer this role...) who would act as an editor for certain matters and solve disputes (Though this may give to much power to the Jr. Editor). The junior editor would also act as editor if someone takes a leave of absence.

Here are some of the reasons I'm reluctant to leave it at two

1- In case of leaves of absence, two editors can function better than a single editor (In the case of one of two editors leaving for a while)

2- It would allow more specialization. There are certain writers I'd like to work with as editor. If there are more editors, the more likely that an editor will be good at working on a certain subject.

3- It would probably end up as one editorial and one administrative, which Ashley specifically said above was a bad idea.


Perhaps the italics are right. I'm willing to leave the decision to them, though it would go against the result I want...

Can we keep this on the egroup - there are valid points toing and froing here which would benefit from being discussed in one area.

Thanks everyone!

Ashley

Not everyone is on the egroup yet

Who's missing - I'll send out the e-vites forthwith.


If anyone has an invite, can they accept it so we can concentrate debate in one forum?

I think that U201249 Vercingetorix and U96220 Deidzoeb aren't in, but there may be more...

Hey there,

Subcom is already in and I have just sent an email to Vercingetorix.

Hmm, I may have confused Deidzoeb with GTBacchus I'll have to check which one said this...

Signed up. New technology to me but it can't be that hard,I guess...

Sprout

Hi Ashley,

There's a list of about 15 Miners on A1000242. I'm pretty sure it's still accurate. Some of them have been absent for a while, but those would be the right people to invite.

Ashley told me that he went through this list, but still might have missed some. And I can vouch for it's accuracy, I updated it about a week ago