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

For the purpose of wrapping up the stalled talks, here are my suggestions for how each of the questions raised on the Unfinished Business page could be answered. If you feel more discussion is needed, then start it here. If you feel options have been discussed enough to vote on them, post your answers in a reply on this thread. This could be a quick multiple choice quiz, or can be expanded into an essay test if you prefer.

I'm looking straight down the list of questions/discussions on the Unfinished Business page, but I'm skipping the ones which seem to have been adequately answered by the Italics, like "What role do the italics have in acceptance of entries?" That doesn't seem like something we need to vote on based on the answer shown.

1. How should UG entries be chosen?
A. Nomination by three miners. One miner nominates an entry, and after it has been seconded and thirded by two other miners, it is considered chosen for the Underguide, then moving on to the subbing process. [This system would not allow miners to vote against nominated entries.]
B. Nomination by two miners. One miner nominates an entry, another miner seconds the nomination, and then it is considered chosen for the Underguide. [This system would not allow miners to vote against nominated entries.]
C. Yea and nay votes. Miners can vote against nominated entries, so that only ones receiving three more YAYs than NAYs will be used in the Underguide.
D. Some other system. If you have an idea for another system or want more discussion, please describe it in your reply to this question.



2. Will Miners have quotas for nominating/voting?
A. Yes, to be determined by UG Editors and/or Italics later as we ramp up to full steam and understand how many entries are required.
B. No, we will have enough nominations without quotas.
C. Describe your alternate suggestion here.



3. Will Miner/subs have quotas for how many they must sub?
A. Yes [determined later by UG Eds and/or Italics].
B. No.
C. Describe your alternate suggestion here.



4. The role of UG Editors should be
A. Mostly administrative, moving and copying entries, bringing larger problems or questions to the Italics.
B. Administrative and editorial, with the ability to reject entries that still seem substandard or do not fit the vision of the Underguide (insert vision here), enough authority to settle debates or impasses before bringing them to the Italics.
C. Describe your alternate suggestion here.



5. The review forum devoted to the Underguide should be titled:
A. Alternative Peer Review.
B. Underguide Review Forum (or some close approximation).
C. Your suggestion here.



6. Entries should gestate in our forum (hopefully collecting comments and suggestions) for a minimum period of:
A. One week, so that even the best entries will have a chance for reviewers to comment.
B. No minimum. Miners can nominate as soon as they find entries.
C. Your suggestion here.



7. Should the email group for the Underguide be open for everyone to read and participate in, or closed (available only to miners)? Note that Italics suggested closed.
A. Open.
B. Closed.
C. Sealed by a porous membrane that filters certain.... whatever. Your suggestion here.



8. Should we put off answering "How will Underguide entries be shown to be Underguide entries?" and let the UG Editors figure it out with the Italics later?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Your suggestion here.



9. Do we maintain official UG archives (categorised and maintained by the Italics after they accept entries), unofficial archives (by UG miners), or both? Note that Italics said they planned to add UG entries to the 'World of h2g2' section anyhow. Also note that Jodan and fwt have begun working on an unofficial categorisation system, taken on the mantle of UG Archivists, and could carry on a guerilla archiving campaign even if we didn't officially sanction their unofficial activities.
A. Only official.
B. Only unofficial.
C. Both, so that UG entries will be integrated into the h2g2 system but also have an archive devoted to them.
D. Your suggestion here.



10. Should keywords be listed at the end of UG entries to aid searchers?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Other, fill in the blank.



My votes are: 1A, 2A, 3A, 4B, 5B, 6A, 7B, 8A, 9C, 10B. (I started rigging the questions so all of my favorites answers were A, but got sidetracked after a few questions.)

Deidzoeb old bean I must apologise for failing to mention the UG movement or give any link in this upcoming Thursday's issue of <./>AggGag</.>/CAC. May I suggest that as soon as it is 'Posted' Thursday morning you start a conversation thread there and provide a link to this thread.

It certainly seems like you've got your head round all of the above and it is time to finalise the terms and conditions of your modus operandi by getting some sort of concensus from a majority of the principle players and other interested parties.

The only question I'll stick my ore (sic) into is the name for the proposed Peerless Reviewing process. It simply has to have the name Underguide in it. And I think the Underguide Review makes a nice, grand and generally appealing sight and sound. Most folks have heard the word 'review' in many different contexts, all of them artsy or creative or theatrical. So it says it all without giving the game away. It could refer to the process, the function and the community of researchers involved as well as the title of any UG home page or page or even as the header on the Front Page link.


~jwf~

Underguide revue, perchance?(assuming your principles are deliberate)

1. D - a miner nominates an entry, which then are voted on by all miners who wish to in a set period. the majority number of votes decides whether to accept or reject it, but the nomination must receive a minimum number of 3 votes, or it must be revoted on.

2. C - miners will have a minimun number of nominations, but will be allowed one vote on each entry nominated. by nominating an entry they give that entry a yes vote.

3. A

4. A

5. A

6. A

7. C - leave the group open for all to discuss and make sugestions about the Underguide, but create a new closed group for volunteers.

8. C - we should decide as a group how they will be shown in discussion with the italics.

9. D - an official categorisation system is used, however, it should not appear in the world of h2g2 section, but as another option on the main page which will take you to the Underguide categorisation system.

10. C - no, that is a very bad idea. if you want to aid researchers in a search, then you put keywords in between the tag so that they will appear in the search but will not be viewable so will not interfere with the entry.


spook

Bloody Hell, Deidzoeb - you are a genius and a gent. I am *seriously* impressed.

My couple of small copper coins in your denomination of choice:

1. How should UG entries be chosen?
A. Nomination by three miners.

2. Will Miners have quotas for nominating/voting?
A. Yes, to be determined by UG Editors and/or Italics

3. Will Miner/subs have quotas for how many they must sub?
A. Yes - But only the Miners who have volunteered to sub

4. The role of UG Editors should be
B. Administrative and editorial - mainly because it eases the burden on the Italics - I can be persuaded on this one

5. The review forum devoted to the Underguide should be titled:
B. Underguide Review - though I prefer APR, UR is more accurate

6. Entries should gestate in our forum (hopefully collecting comments and suggestions) for a minimum period of:
A. One week - this matches PR and we want as little confusion as possible

7. Should the email group for the Underguide be open for everyone to read and participate in, or closed (available only to miners)? Note that Italics suggested closed.
C. Your suggestion here. _The EXISTING MSN group should remain open; the New email group for Miners should be closed

8. Should we put off answering "How will Underguide entries be shown to be Underguide entries?" and let the UG Editors figure it out with the Italics later?
A. Yes - hopefully it won't take too long to work out something if there are only four of five people involved in the decision.

9. Do we maintain official UG archives , unofficial archives or both? C. Both, if it amuses Jodan and fwt

10. Should keywords be listed at the end of UG entries to aid searchers?
A. No opinion


Now let's see what that means: "Mostly A's: you are good with words, willing to put in the effort to change that small part of the world around you that you can reach, willing to take a lead on ventures, and with a highly subversive sense of humour that many people just don't 'get'"

B

Quickly... I just got home... hate to answer in haste, but here's my

1-D no major difference, I mostly agree with B, but a miner should be able to put a +subbing without using one of their votes. If those two miners don't want to sub it, that is.

2-A

3-B I think since subbing A UG entry isn't a very lengthy thing, a dedicated few can handle it. That is those who want to keep it up. But that's the idealist in me talking

4- B

5- I honestly don't care. B I suppose

6- A, though I don't see what comments in alternative writing can help. But it works for the EG

7-B closed

8-C this is something the Italics have complete control over. Whatever they think is best goes, and I'm in no position to criticise it. I agree with whatever the Italics think.

9-B, but could go with C. But remember, the Italics would create their UG archives later, making theirs the guerilla.

10-B. Ideally.

11- Oh look I'm out of questions!

Hello

1. How should UG entries be chosen?
C. Yea and nay votes. Miners can vote against nominated entries, so that only ones receiving three more YAYs than NAYs will be used in the Underguide.

I still like this idea. It's identical to nominating/seconding/thirding, except it includes a check in case there's a controversial entry that needs further discussion.

2. Will Miners have quotas for nominating/voting?
A. Yes, to be determined by UG Editors and/or Italics later as we ramp up to full steam and understand how many entries are required.

This seems like the correct way to guarantee that the required number of entries come through each week. It works for the Scouts.

3. Will Miner/subs have quotas for how many they must sub?
A. Yes [determined later by UG Eds and/or Italics].

Ditto. It ain't broke.

4. The role of UG Editors should be
A. Mostly administrative, moving and copying entries, bringing larger problems or questions to the Italics.

The italics have final say, why create confusion as to where the buck stops?

5. The review forum devoted to the Underguide should be titled:

Abstain. APR is nice, alphabetically (they are still planning to arrange them alphabetically, no?), but URF is a better description.

6. Entries should gestate in our forum (hopefully collecting comments and suggestions) for a minimum period of:
A. One week, so that even the best entries will have a chance for reviewers to comment.

It ain't broke; don't fix it.

7. Should the email group for the Underguide be open for everyone to read and participate in, or closed (available only to miners)? Note that Italics suggested closed.
B. Closed.

Ditto.

8. Should we put off answering "How will Underguide entries be shown to be Underguide entries?" and let the UG Editors figure it out with the Italics later?
A. Yes.

That's a funny question. Choice A gets the ball rolling quicker.

9. Do we maintain official UG archives (categorised and maintained by the Italics after they accept entries), unofficial archives (by UG miners), or both? Note that Italics said they planned to add UG entries to the 'World of h2g2' section anyhow. Also note that Jodan and fwt have begun working on an unofficial categorisation system, taken on the mantle of UG Archivists, and could carry on a guerilla archiving campaign even if we didn't officially sanction their unofficial activities.
C. Both, so that UG entries will be integrated into the h2g2 system but also have an archive devoted to them.

I like C, as long as someone's willing to maintain an unofficial archive. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with being in the regular categorization system.

10. Should keywords be listed at the end of UG entries to aid searchers?
A. Yes.

Sure, why not? Unless there's a good reason not to.

To summarize:
1.C, 2.A, 3.A, 4.A, 5.abs, 6.A, 7.B, 8.A, 9.C, 10.A

>>C. Both, so that UG entries will be integrated into the h2g2 system but also have an archive devoted to them.

I like C, as long as someone's willing to maintain an unofficial archive. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with being in the regular categorization system.


As soon as I get in touch with fwt he and I can set up the basic infastructure. I can assure you I'll keep it updated.

For what it's worth, I don't have any sort of problem with UG entries in the world of h2g2.

I'm coming around to the suggestions of Spook & Ben that we could have an open forum and a closed forum (leave the existing MSN group open, create a new closed forum). Will we have enough discussions to use that many fora? We could use h2g2 as an open forum, unless there's something special about reading messages via email instead of on a website.

This was an excellent idea Subcom. And the votes from the Waterhole are;

France nil point
Norway one point
Luxembourg... sorry, wrong contest.

1 A - Having no experience of this sort of process, and therefore accepting Anna and Ashley's view that keeping track of a yea or nay system would be difficult I vote for A, three's better than two.

2 A

3 B, assuming we're still combining both roles under the title 'Miner'. Not all Miners will want to sub.But if there's going to be a sublist of those are volunteering to sub then a quota is a good idea.

4 B, I think they should have some authority (under the overseeing eye of the italics). I favour the idea of them being a final filter on entry standards.

5 C Underguide Review maybe?

6 Not B. C 2 weeks? One seems short given the last fortnight's experience with unmentionable distractions.

7 B

8 A (except how do we show them in the interim. Or will there be no interim?)

9 C - Both for the time being.

10 A, subject to Ashley's view because I have a vague memory of his saying either to hold fire on that idea or that it would cause problems. I don't see why including a couple of keywords at the end of an entry would though. If not A then C and what spook said. I didn't know that could be done.

And that concludes the voting from the Waterhole.

Looks good from my perspective

*waving at fwt*

email me and I'll give you the user and pass for the archivist persona

I propose a new multiple choice question. (Multiple Letters possible)

What are the jobs of the UG Editors?

A- Ambassadors to the Italics
B- Manage Miners
C- Veto/Accept UG entries
D- Raise Awareness
E- Miners Mailing List
F- Encourage Entry Flow
G- Sub entries
H- Manage the Miner and UG pages
I- Micromanage AWW/TURF/APR/UR
J- Announce "Progress Report" type thing announcements
K- Limit each other's power
L- Maintain archives
M- Maintain link and list pages (Such as list of UG miners)
N- Write unnecessarily long lists of choices (Oh wait, I did it for them)

Can UG entries be blobbed?

What are the jobs of the UG Editors?

H- Manage the Miner and UG pages
I- Micromanage AWW/TURF/APR/UR
J- Announce "Progress Report" type thing announcements

I see it as an administrative role.

Ben

PS - what do you mean by blobbing a page, Jodan?

Not editorial?

Blobbing, making a picture. The community artists do this for some EG entries. Obviously, we won't ask them to do one of every five of our entries, but would they be allowed to do some?

?

What's to do that's editorial?

The Italics have the veto, the Miners choose, the Miners also Polish the Gems, I may be missing something blindingly obvious, but I can't see anything else that is editorial.

I was assuming that when we were official, some at least of our entries would get blobs.

B

The ongoing cursing debate for one thing. Editors may ask the assisting sub to tone down certain words, look over the subbed entry and make sure it's acceptable in certain ways. This would reduce the need for italic work, that is when they tell us the standards

I think it'll be up to the community artists even when it's official. A blob wouldn't work for certain types of entries, like humor or some poetry

My feeling is that any of the Miners could pass opinions or give advice about swearing, and that the Italics' decision would be final.

B

I see

*Dashes in and says "Hope I'm not too early!"

1. B
2. A
3. B unless we find later that this is necessary.
4. A - editorial is for the Italics and wider UG Community.
5. C - don't mind/can't decide.
6. A
7. B - open is what goes on in APR/URF etc.
8. A - if we can get an EG type marker that would be fantastic. If not the UG suffix will do the job.
9. C - but an archive must be kept reasonably up to date or state where it stops, otherwise it's misleading.
10. A - where necessary only.

Sprout