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

KB - as I said, I really do think these conversations are useful for the reasons I've given.

Peanut - as you know, we put together a bid for the site and that included a lot of work on the practicalities. We can't share those details on a completely open website until we at least know when the BBC will announce the outcome of the bidding process.

Actually, I think there's a bunch of stuff we probably could share now, but it's not for me to say "yes, let's put that out there".

We are working on FAQs (two sets, rather depressingly).

Ach, you all know this all ready.

As I said - I think these conversations are really valuable, and I'm counting the aeons until they stop being theoretical.

Ben

Ben, you are saying things I have heard before. I am saying things you have heard before, as you've said. And neither of us can move on to new ground yet.

So in response to Peanut's question ("Anyone have any ideas about how to move forward with the filling of these roles?") The answer is "Yes, we sit and wait".

The question on volunteer roles is not added to the entry. Thank you.

>> The question on volunteer roles is not added to the entry. Thank you.

Huh? Is that the FAQs?

Btw, can whoever's operating the Magrathea a/c sign posts etc in their usual name? I know we've got a hive mind, but it may help other folks know who's who. I assume that this was Sister Happy Nerd?

It was just that having read through a lot of 'riffle' I had the impression that we were getting to a point when we could firm up on volunteer roles. As that information is already out there I was confused as to why it fell under bid confidentality. And to be honest I'm still confused by it.

Er.... wibble?

Sorry, that's not a fair answer. I've lost track slightly of what's described where. Most definitely my bad.

We're working on FAQs which is actually a much better way of sharing this sort of stuff. While they are in draft format they are not exactly confidential, but they are not published either.

Let me see if I can find the link to what I posted earlier. I may be some time...

Ben

Got it! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F19585?thread=8233143#p109270142 Here's what I said: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OK - personal opinion here, not Official Interim Committee stance, though a lot of this made it into the Great Big Document - I think we'll need four teams as follows: Community Team Editorial Team Technical Team Admin Team and in the future probably a fifth one Business Development Team - though I guess that might be instead of the Admin Team The Community Team would manage ACEs as well as manage moderation and bans. They'd also do cheerier things like promoting clubs and societies; I'd see the Post Editor as being a member of that team. (This is personal opinion, remember, not Official Policy Doodah). The Editorial Team would do the quality checking and all the other editorial tasks to keep us producing good quality original writing; this would include running the Scouts and Subs. The Tech Team would feed the ham(p)sters, co-ordinate volunteer testers to test any code releases, co-ordinate the Gurus perhaps to act as first and second line support, and they would also work on coding upgrades to the site. This can all be done on a volunteer basis - we're a pretty geeky site. (Better with paid staff, but it';s that old cutting our coat to suit our cloth thing again). The Admin Team would pay the bills, renew the software licences, fend off the libel writs, and generally keep the show on the road. Business Development would do things like the stuff I was doing with the book, feed the Twitter feeds, and - I dunno - organise competitions to get in new writers. All of that is just my personal opinion though, based on what was in the public domain in the Great Big Document. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry if it feels like pulling teeth. It's partly the nature of the site, where conversations happen in lots of different places. I hope that helps explain a bit more about what's been discussed and where the discussions have got to. Ben

Hi Ben,

I have been keeping up with discussions, mainly as per usual. From these I gained the impression that we had a clear idea of the tasks we would need to do. Assigning those tasks to roles does need 'firming up', I thought that was something we could do now, or start on.

It was starting to happen 'organically' on the community editor thread and it was a great place to start. If modding is not in the community team's remit, they are the least contentious roles to 'firm up' for a start and needed where ever we end up. We don't where we are going but personally when I get there I want a hug from an ace, a community editor picking up a bar tab somewhere and Icy counting us all in

As Ben said we'd possibly need quite a few people on the Community Team during a transition to ensure that they can take care of everyone. During that time I think their main job would be to answer questions and point people to the right direction. Or if they can't answer a question they should at least know who can.
I don't know, how many people do you think would that be?

We need at least one person who can respond quickly to queries, say, within an hour.

This means we need to not only have a few people to share the workload, we need to try and ensure that we have a couple of volunteers from outside of Europe too. That would be my ideal, anyway. Not everyone needs to be able to answer every question, but as Tav said they need to know where to direct people, or to be able to research the answer themselves.

Peanut, I really hope I haven't put you off making these suggestions. These are discussions that absolutely need to happen, and happen here on the site.

if what I said gave the wrong impression.

Ben

I don't envision needing, say, more than five or six people, spread out across time zones (if possible) for that particular role. I would prefer to have people in addition to the current ACEs, because ACEing doesn't stop because we have new jobs to do.

In fact, ACEing could get heavier if we get any publicity at any point, because more people will be interested. Which is good!

Of course, if anyone wanted to do both I would be more than happy. They are closely related, as it is more likely that new people would have more questions than those of us who have been watching the process as it's been going along.

Yes, I guess we'd need a few people who just help with the community during the transition and could then drop the job again once this is done.

Depending on the timing, I'd be willing to take on a temporary role. The thing is, we may be moving this summer, and we may drop internet for a few months to help with cashflow for a few months (and, even if we don't, I'll need to not be online as much as I am now).

You would be *very, very* welcome to help out as much as you are able, Amy P.

Yes please Amy.

You not putting me suggesting stuff but I'm all out of suggestions and I've read everyone elses. I wanted to move past that point, if we can get a consensus for the community ed role, start looking for people who can fill them.

Clearly it's not my place to that we do need a lead from the IC on how they want to go about recruitment. I don't see that discussing how you would like to do this falls under confidentality rules but if it does, it does.

I thought that if we could sort out a few key roles at least, should we get the bid we can hitting the ground running, we have some idea of what to expect and more time just to enjoy noohootoo rather than immediatly become immersed in discussions of who is going to do what

and

Love Peanut

Well like I said, it depends on if I have internet access and/or time, and when the transition actually is.

Peanut, you are holding the right conversations in the right place and at the right time Go for it!

I think moderation needs its own thread (yes I know there is probably one somewhere already...)

Has anyone considered outsourcing moderation? Has that been costed? It would solve ALOT of thorny problems.

Have to admit I struggle to see how community members can be moderators. What would we do with something like the Della Wars, or the Digi Wars, where moderators are likely to be people already involved in the conflict? Or are there enough researchers who don't get involved who would also want to be a moderator?