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

Cast three votes. Remember that it who you should remember-

- A maximum of three people who have access to the account

- Researchers who have a proven track record of keen editorial copy, copyright, defamation, libel etc.

- Proven trustworthiness

As well as our one through eight on the Why is the AWW Still Such a Dead End Thread.

What happened to our female miners?

We're really voting for 3 out of 4 candidates I guess?

Anyway my votes go to:

GTB
Jodan
Vercingetorix

In no particular order

Sprout

i think we need a list of people who are already editors, how many more we need and who is willing to be an editor before we can really vote properly.

spook

Woah, slow down...

1) What role/s are we voting for?
2) What are the duties of the role/s that we are voting for?
3) Who is standing for these roles / this role?
4) How are these people nominated?
5) Who gets to vote for them?
6) How are you publicising this to potential nominees?
7) How are you publicising this to potential voters?
8) Who are you publicising it to?
9) When do nominations close?
10) When does voting open?
11) When does voting close?

I *really* want answers to all those questions, before I can consider this a valid way of doing anything. At the moment, I am sorry, but it STINKS.

B

I'm not sure if we need rules for impeachment or votes-of-confidence, but it would be worth considering those things before putting someone in a position that we can never pry them out of. And I'm still curious about how attrition would work. Shall we vote in this same way when Editors vacate positions?

As for the roles of the Editor (Ben's questions 1 and 2), there was another thread where we tried to get discussion and votes on this topic. Seven out of (15?) turned in votes there.
F116667?thread=265110&skip=0&show=20

Maybe we should advertise that thread around other spaces where UG Miners will see it. I'll try to roust people who have not voted there yet. I suggest we wrap up the voting over there before taking a new vote on who should be UG Editor.

Don't get discouraged, Jodan. Keeping the momentum is good, but these questions from Ben are important to answer before we get too far.

I agree that it is worth posting to everybodies PS with a link to the appropriate thread.

Everybody being all those that have signed up/expressed interest on the relevant page. The problem i have found is so many threads, new plans created and threads spinning of those pages etc. I thought i was subscribed to them all but i wasnt and only came across a couple by accident.

Inform everybody that the UG is moving along again, ask if they are still interested, and if so to get themselves subscribed to ONE thread where the discussions will take place (apart from one obvious other thread which will be the one with Ashley)

More than one ongoing thread will end up with duplication and repercussion. If we cannot organise ourselves at this stage then it doesnt bode well for the UG scheme - at least that is how the italics could view it.

Jodan has done some sterling work so we can build on that. Rounding up the troops is the first thing to confirm who is still wishing to be active As has become apparent, things change and peoples comittments change so it would be worth double checking.

Mort - who always seems to be 10 posts behind

It stinks? I've been trying in many threads to get a consensus on these things that you've mentioned. I'll leave figuring your questions out up to you and kindly ask how you expect to come up with an answers.

I feel strongly that the current method, the self confessed 'Power Grab' is much worse than this democratic method.

stinks?

Herbal for everybody.

A small thing. Is this the thread that the conversations will continue? because we need to have somewhere to direct people to be up to date?

No, this thread will be for voting when and if it gets approval

Point them to the Why is the AWW Such a Dead End thread. It has a number of links to other useful conversations as well

We shall return...

Current discussion is at

F55683?thread=231192&post=3488483

until notified otherwise!

"I've been trying in many threads to get a consensus on these things that you've mentioned."

I think that is part of the problem. There are just *too* many conversations going on all over the place, and a lot of them have been moving very quickly, so it is extremely difficult to keep pace with what is going on.

"I'll leave figuring your questions out up to you and kindly ask how you expect to come up with an answers."

All I want is a system which produces the best result for the successful launch and ongoing success of the Underguide.

If voting produces the best result for the Underguide, then voting it shall be. But it MUST be fair, it must be clear what we are voting for and who is entitled to vote. The rules about who nominates people, (do they nominate themselves, or are they nominated by someone else?) and who is entitled to vote should be clear. Also the duties of the role - is it administrative or editorial. And finally it must be clear what are the opening and closing dates for nominations and for voting.

Let's vote by all means. But let's do it right.

Ben

Alright.

Here's my thoughts. When we've sorted this... Make a page that outlines who is nominated, how to vote, why you should vote for them etc... Then this can serve as an appropriate forum, and will make them more informed.

Okay, my proposed rules of voting.

- New miners applications are frozen until the end of voting, so that people can't stuff the ballot box

- Two votes for each miner

- Three people will get the title

- Voting open to all miners, though if we wanted to keep it to core founder miners, we could. But we'd have to define who those are.

- We verify candidacy for each candidate

- We leave a message at each miner's space telling them to vote

- Every miner can be nominated by one other miner. The nominating miner may nominate as many miners as he or she wants

- Votes will be tallied and the three with the highest number will be editored.

As for the role, we can debate that on the other thread

- New miners applications are frozen until the end of voting, so that people can't stuff the ballot box

Check - so the list of people who can vote is the list of people who have *as of your post just now* volunteered as miners? Works for me.


- Two votes for each miner

Check


- Three people will get the title

Hmmm. Ashley seemed to think that two was better.


- Voting open to all miners, though if we wanted to keep it to core founder miners, we could. But we'd have to define who those are.

All miners, I am not sure who or indeed what the founder miners are, exactly!


- We verify candidacy for each candidate

How?


- We leave a message at each miner's space telling them to vote

Check - I suggest that nominations are open for a week, and that voting is then opened and remains open for a week, total time elapsed two weeks.


- Every miner can be nominated by one other miner. The nominating miner may nominate as many miners as he or she want.

Check - though I am tempted to nominate all the miners, to get that particular stage over and done with!

- Votes will be tallied and the three with the highest number will be editored.

Check.

Well done Jodan. I am much happier with this sort of structure, and I have a couple of additional comments:

1) We must agree the duties before nominations can open.

2) We must agree and publicise the timescales for nominations and voting.

3) We need to decide whether voting takes place on site, visible to all, or whether each individual miner sends an email with their votes to Ashley, who then announces the three winners after the voting has closed; this has the advantage of being, in effect, a secret ballot.

Ben
*feeling much happier now that some reality seems to be creeping in*

We verify candidacy by asking if they would like to be a candidate

>>Hmmm. Ashley seemed to think that two was better.

I, personally like three. Most of the miners discussion I've seen works with three as their number in mind.

>>1) We must agree the duties before nominations can open.

Of course.

2) We must agree and publicise the timescales for nominations and voting.

Whoever monitors the voting (See #3) should decide this.

3) We need to decide whether voting takes place on site, visible to all, or whether each individual miner sends an email with their votes to Ashley, who then announces the three winners after the voting has closed; this has the advantage of being, in effect, a secret ballot.

I'm more comfortable onsite, but I'd be content with offsite

Well, you are doing a good job of driving this forward, Jodan, so I suggest that you organise us into voting. It will be *exactly* like herding cats, but the rest of us will just be pathetically grateful it is you, and not us, who is doing it!

Thanks Jodan, I am significantly happier about how things are shaping up.

I won't be able to spend *nearly* as much time online for the rest of this week, btw.

Goodnight, all.

B

GTB and Deidzoeb established a timeline sort of thing on the unfinished business thread that gives us time to define the roles and whatnot before I open the polls

Everyone,

It's great to see this moving forward - the structure is there but I will reiterate what I said earlier, and I think Ben brought this up,that is to start with the UG Editorship should be in the hands of two people.

If we discover we need another person on board, you can elect them when the time arises. Too many chiefs and all that...

Ashley

Ashley-

We always did this as three editors. Making it two would throw me off quite a bit. We've been planning this as three editors, and I think three would do a better job anyway.

Is there anything significantly better about having two editors instead of one? Three seems more reliable to me.

Keeping the numbers to two has a couple its advantages:

It helps keep consistency in the UG entries - the more people who have access to the account the more 'interpretation' of your own rules is possible.

Look at the debate going on about the Collaborative Topic in the soapbox at the moment. People are interpreting the guidelines as they see fit, without actually acknowledging that the entry stays within the Guidelines. It also ignores the fact that we're lambasted for being pedestrian, we're lambasted for doing too many recipes, we change the format a bit, remain with in the Guidelines and we're still lambasted. Apply this to the UG Editors and the scope for debate, conflict etc is enormous.

Two editors will supply focus, three scope and at the moment the UG needs focus. What I'm trying to say is start small and grow. Create an ethos and framework that can incorprate more people. It would be awful to start with three UG Editors only to realise that there is not enough work to go round and have to demote someone.

Ashley