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

OK. So the plan is to vote in replacements for the Eds, who then take over the planning of the new volunteer systems, if they are needed.

I'll vote for that.

So for now we can just sit back and relax until we know the eventual outcome of the h2g2 disposal.

Thanks Z for that last posting. I think that would be by far the best policy. The alternative, whereby everything is shaken up from the start, would mean potential chaos with no-one really knowing what was going on.

I think it is essential to have caretaker 'Eds' either nominated, or self-proposed, from the outset. I suggest asking some of our present tier of Curators if they would be prepared to take this role on as they are already in trusted positions.




As to the perceived lack of need to retain sub-editors, I disagree. Often there are authors who come up with original ideas for a Guide Entry, but who are unable to tidy the text up well enough. Sub-editing these pieces can be fairly easy, if for instance there is either less GuideML to deal with (it is less time-consuming to add in GuideML, rather than check out incorrect GuideML) or none at all. (plain text)

Who knows? In the future we may have a complete new system for writing Entries, so this may be a temporary issue.

However, even distinguished and inspirational writers benefit from the attentions of a sub (more as a final proof-read and polisher) In which case I can see the case for the sub-editor not being credited. In the former case, where the sub-editor has to work quite hard, for instance checking out the original research - I think the name of the researcher who sub-edited the final piece should appear.

But that might be something we could discuss in the future - the first step should be to have an interim level of potential 'Caretaker-Eds'

Thanks for the agreement. I think that in the medium-long term the volunteer schemes are going to have to change, but I don't think that there's a big rush to change them all at once. I think we've got time to do it right and vote on it.

Also nothing is set in stone EVER we'll, hopefully have far far more collabrative approach, so all volunteers and eds, who will just be volunteers will be able to sit down and discuss it.

So, for the transition, how many volunteerbullfinchreplacementeditors would be need? They'd need to do the editorial stuff and deal with the moderation issues..

I was thinking at least 7, or 9, or 'as many as are willing'. I think co-opting curators is a great idea. But many people may not want to take on a role that would be quite public.

I have to admit that I'll be willing to do it..

Vip - if you can sumarise this I'll put it in the GBD. I need two or three paragraphs covering

- situation as it is now (not the processes in details just a sentence about what each group does)

- what we've agreed

- what we'll do in the short and maybe the medium term

- what is still under discussion and still to be agreed at a later date

Once I've got that I'll put it in the GBD. The GBD is a list of things to do, really, and I'm quite happy for it to include "think about this" and "discuss that".

B

That's easy, given that nothing has been agreed.

I'll do that for you tonight.

There's a new convo on volunteers happening here: F21417054?thread=8234919