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

No, I know you volunteered. I'm simply curious as to where I got this information from. I know I wasn't scanning the Why is AWW such a dead end thread. Curious is all

hey, there are only about 200 threads about the udnerguide. i'm sure you'll find it in the end.

spook

Miner #14 reporting for duty *well if only briefly*. I haven't got round to reading everything yet, but am generally quite enthusiastic about the whole project. Just thought I'd pop in as suggested, and make my voice heard. I suspect one or two of you already know me *waves in spook's general direction*

*waves back*

yo verc,
good to see you man,
it's just as thrilling as seeing peter pan,
in the sky,
way up high,
flying absolutely nothing like a bear!

Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board for how many UG Editors are optimal and how to fill the slots when vacated? Originally I suggested 6 people who could share the UG Editors persona. Italics said that 1-3 would be better. Some of the original 6 bowed out because they could not devote much time to the project, or because they wanted to bring the numbers down to the range Italics asked for.

Now do we need to fill up those original six slots? Should we try to have 2 or 3 total? Are these slots filled by the next person in line, or should there be a more complicated process?

Maybe I shouldn't have simply nominated those original six. Maybe we should call for a vote of confidence? How does this work in UK politics? I haven't followed it much, so I don't know how often it happens, or why the opposition does not call for votes every day or every month.

If I remember correctly, the list of six original nominees for the UG Editors persona includes
* Spiff who has not commented on the idea
* several who have bowed out (GTB, Waz and Ben)
* friendlywithteeth who said "unless one of the others 'really' doesn't want to do it, I'll step down too"
* me. And I'm not sure how long I could give full attention to it.

So already it's unclear which of those people will take charge of it in the first place and hold things together.

If we held a vote, we would need to decide how many UG Editor slots there should be, who should fill them to begin with, and how to replace them later if/when it becomes necessary.

Sorry to shake things up after this seemed like a done-deal, but I'd hate to see the Underguide have troubles in its first days if none of the UG Editors could devote enough time or effort to it, and I'm worried about who might become Editor later if the position is filled on a first-come/first-served basis.

I suggest we don't have a vote for something like this right away. Need some time for campaigning, bribing, stuff like that.

I can't conceive of 6 good miners we have that haven't bowed out.

I don't really think the whole process of picking our editors is right. I'm not going to say that we'd regret it, but maybe we need to come up with a better system than who volunteered first


I'd go for 3 slots, candidacy and voting.

an official member of the party

That's the part that has made me reconsider. When I think about future Editors being whoever is next in line, I realize that would be just as unfair as that "Power Grab" for the first six people who volunteered.

Very good. I'm all for democracy

Spook is right about the sequence of events; my suggestion is that we get a clear job description, with the aid of the Italics, and then open the role up for volunteers and voting among the Miners and the Italics. Secret ballot by email to the Towers.

My two pennorth.

B

I always took it that the 'power grab' was just to get things started. I'm hoping we can go with who we have until the scheme is underway and we have more miners. Then nominations and votes look like a good way to go. Do the italics have a view on this? Would they prefer to co-opt perhaps?

How the UG persona is selected/elected has an impact on what role I'd vote for them having. In the other thread I've gone for them having some authority, and a final say on UG entries. If the persona is going to just move down the list of volunteering miners I'd chjange that to just an admin role.
Waz

The problem I can see arising is over specialisation. I do not want to see one of the UG editors administrative and the other editorial. That would give them too much power in that area.

Maybe I'm paranoid?!

Any ideas on candidates?

The latest from the Towers F32500?thread=270740&latest=1

Thanks.

Which is best: a couple of highly dynamic, highly involved editors, or a slightly larger team of equally dynamic, but has less time to give of editors?

The first. Like Greebo and Shazz as editorial. If there is a major problem, a less involved editor won't be as dynamic in solving it.

I still don't like the selection process of the UG editors

Hmmm. Do you still not like it?

fwt, I think Jodan was talking about the old "first come=first editors" idea. In the intervening week, the concensus seems to be that UG Editors should be put to a vote. I think he likes it now!

Yes, I was

And yes, I do like it now. It's more democratic