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

... on the Underguide Proposals, please?

To be honest i don't have the time to go through all the threads (I have read them but to print them would take forever). What I'd really appreciate is if I could have a digest here with the relevant links/threads highlighted?

I know it sound lazy but this way enables me to give more thorough feedback.

Cheers
Ashley

No Probs.

To be honest not much has changed, except a certain delight. I have just posted a fairly broad-sweeping summary and RFC in the Underguide thread here:

F51226?thread=247412&post=3002232#p3002220

The people who are doing the most on the processes are GTB, Deidzoeb, Wazungu and myself.

There is still a lot to do, but the mood of the meeting (ie everyone else) seems to be 'we'll go along with it'. I am sure there will be some discussion on finer points, and those fine points are where we have got stuck.

We (GTB, Deidoeb, Waz and myself) are just a bunch of researchers and don't have any authority or ownership. This is a good thing, but I think we are close to taking it as far as we can get it without some drafting and sanctioning by yourselves. We need some final decisions and only the Editors' decisions are final.




I would like to get some actual voting for entries going on too. I see the first five entries as being key to the success of the project in the community, and I would like to get a pool of 10 picked entries with 2 more going into per week as a starting point. Then I would like to up the number of picked entries as the number of Miners increases to the point where we can clearly sustain one entry per day. And if that takes a year, that takes a year. Quality and consistancy are my objectives here.






It has occurred to me that we might be able to cover a lot of ground very quickly, and save each other a lot of key-board work, if I came in to the offices for a day or two sometime. I only suggest it because I am in the UK and the others aren't, (unless Waz and fwt are too?)

I can see that there is a lot of drafting to do: the 5 volunteer pages, the APR page, the UnderGuidelines, changes to the other volunteer pages and the other Review Forum pages, an official announcement of the scheme and how it works, not to mention setting up the Miners' mailing list. I am sure there is more I have not thought of.

Since teamwork is easier in one room than across a hundred or thousand miles of modem line, what do you think of setting a couple of dates for me to come in and help with the drafting? I promise to be nice!






AWW is busy, people are putting in new entries, and conversations are moving fairly rapidly. This is because there is a real workable vision to aim for, and because it is known that if we (the community) get it right then we have the support and endorsement of you (the editors).






There is a momentum issue here, and I think we need to keep the flywheel turning by starting up a Founder-Miners group, whose task is to vote for the first ten entries. This keeps the momentum going, it has a clear goal, and it means we can iron out teething problems in a small group.

Unfortunately I am offline for the vast majority of this week. GTB is also distracted. Subcom is focussing on the infrastructure and has not yet got into AWW. fwt, Waz and Spiff are all active in AWW, as are spook, jodan, and some others. (tonsil revenge) and Madent for instance.

What would be great would be if you were to create the Yahoo group, invite Subcom, Spiff, GTB, Waz, fwt, me and spook to join it, accept other volunteers as they sign up on the 'Volunteer to be a Miner - DRAFT' page and announce it on the Announcements page as a PROTO-group with the specific aim of picking those first 10.




I know there may be an issue with starting a group before we have guidelines and a code of conduct, and this is where the status as a PROTO-group comes in. We all have to be aware that we are creating not only the Underguide but its infrastructure too. My feeling is that the Proto-group should probably be no more than a dozen, but realistically I doubt that it will be more than that.

So there you are. My . Let me know what you think.

And thank you. (Did I say that already? - well I am saying it now and will doubtless say it again).



Ben

Oh, and sprout! He does amazing stuff trawling around outside AWW, which is much more time consuming.

B

Hey Ben,

It's good to see the amount of feedback generated by my one posting. I've read your comments and have some feedback from other stuff I have seen from varying corners of the discussion process. If any of this is out of date, then I apologise in advance.



>>> ...a pool of 10 picked entries with 2 more per week

Are you saying that you start off with 10 entries in one go? I think it would be more just and fair to each entry to start with two, and gather the momentum from thereon - that way each entry gets the attention it deserves.



>>> Quality and consistency are my objectives here.

Thank you for this. The UG has to be of sufficient quality for it to succeed. Entries will have to be 'rejected', will have to be tweaked and will have to be modified to reach the standards you set for the UG. We can't - and absolutely don't want to - see the UG as the dumping ground for entries that have failed PR. If that is the case, it means that we have failed.



>>> Since teamwork is easier in one room than across a hundred or thousand miles of modem line, what do you think of setting a couple of dates for me to come in and help with the drafting?

This would be a great idea. What I suggest though is to really get a solid set of guidelines, procedures, etc set up which we can then go through with part of the Community bods. I'm all for less keyboard action, I have nails to maintain after all...

>>> I promise to be nice!

I'll hold you to that.



>>> ... Founder-Miners group, whose task is to vote for the first ten entries.

This is the only thing that really concerns me and I think most of it is because I have missed something along the way. Is this group a permanent fixture? Is voting for entries that go in the UG? Is voting open to all the community? Or is the voting for after the entries have been subbed?

The problem with voting is that it doesn't offer any kind of feedback. A review forum allows the exchange of ideas and a communal thumbs up. The danger of setting up a group who decides these is that it becomes a bit cliquey. As they stand, review forums are open to all, scouting to the select few, for want of better words.

I've sounded this out to the Team who all say the same, review is constructive whereas voting can upset more people than it pleases.



>>> PROTO-group

This is served by the MSN community at the moment. When most of the issues have been ironed out, we could launch a group as an h2g2 group rather than a quasi-entity.



*** Mullings and Notes ***

The Committee - I've seen postings of a committee around. This may be out of date, if so ignore me. What function would a committee serve that a review forum doesn't? I just don't want to see a great scheme bogged down by an over-hierarchical structure.



As for the UG Editor persona, I can't stress enough the importance of this being in as few hands as possible. A maximum of three is recommended. Any more than that and you are in danger of losing track of postings etc. Please trust us on this one. The three people who have access to this should be editorially aware, community aware and scout savvy. In the long run it will make your jobs a lot easier.



Something else you will need to work into your ethos and discuss with Shazz is how the UG is different from the Post. To avoid any clashes in the future, it would be good to reference this now.

I realize that this posting is full of my worries, but please don't take any offence because none is intended. I want to see this scheme work, which is why I want to pose these questions now.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I'll check back later.

Ashley

I knew your reply would be worth waiting for. Here are my immediate thoughts. I am doing this now because, as I said, I am offline most of the rest of this week.



>>> ...a pool of 10 picked entries with 2 more per week

> Are you saying that you start off with 10 entries in one go?

Nope - but I would be happier if there was an upcoming entries list which contained 10 or a dozen entries which we agreed were good UG entries and which you can then pick and choose from when selecting entries for the front page. You need a decent sized pool to pick up any slack, and we need a decent sized pool to show people what we think constitutes a good UG entry.



>>> Quality and consistency are my objectives here.

> Entries will have to be 'rejected',

Agreed, and this will require tact and diplomacy because the main rejection criteria will be 'not enough people like it'. In fact clearing poor quality entries by active researchers out of AWW/APR will be the most difficult and contentious part of the whole thing.

> will have to be tweaked and will have to be modified to reach the standards you set for the UG.

The current AWW threads show that people are making suggestions to authors for ways to improve the entries, and that some of the authors are following up on those suggestions and making the changes. This does seem to be happening already. We all have the PR model to draw on, and we are doing so.

> We can't - and absolutely don't want to - see the UG as the dumping ground for entries that have failed PR. If that is the case, it means that we have failed.

I agree with you totally on this. There is already a lot of off-site discussion about the fact that entries will be selected for the UG, that the UG will have standards, even if it does not have so many guidelines. The fact that there is no automatic right to put any old crap into the UG is one of the key things for most of us, I think. There will need to be a massive sweep by the Grim Reaper through AWW putting entries which require more work into the WW or simply back to their authors. Voting on the GR maneuver will be a task for the Miners.



>>> Since teamwork ... help with the drafting?

> I'm all for less keyboard action, I have nails to maintain after all...



>>> I promise to be nice!

> I'll hold you to that.





>>> ... Founder-Miners group, whose task is to vote for the first ten entries.

> This is the only thing that really concerns me and I think most of it is because I have missed something along the way. Is this group a permanent fixture?

Nope - these people will be normal Miners, but just the first of them. They will be involved in setting up the scheme and will need additional patience, wisdom and tact to work within a scheme which is not fully defined. Their tasks will be more complex, but they can contribute actively to the development of the whole thing. But at the end of the day they are just Miners like the ones who join the scheme later.

> Is voting for entries that go in the Underguide [a permanent fixture]? Is voting open to all the community? Or is the voting for after the entries have been subbed?

> The problem with voting is that it doesn't offer any kind of feedback. A review forum allows the exchange of ideas and a communal thumbs up. The danger of setting up a group who decides these is that it becomes a bit cliquey. As they stand, review forums are open to all, scouting to the select few, for want of better words.


The idea at present is to do both. AWW will run *as it is currently running* on the PR model with critique and discussions taking place to help the author improve the entry.

The Miners will have a vote, (this is the perk and purpose of being a Miner), and voting will take place in a closed email group. We decided that a voting system was better than a picking system, because of the subjective nature of UG entries.

So from an Author's-eye-view, say they submit an Entry on houseplants to PR and a Poem about lost love to AWW. Both the Entry and the Poem are discussed in the appropriate forums. People give their opinions, the author makes changes, and time passes. The suddenly they get an email saying 'Your entry has been picked for the EG' and another saying 'Your poem has been picked for the UG'. They do not see the sausages being made. Then the Entry is sent to a sub, who probably does not involve them, and the Poem is sent to a Miner who has reported for Gem Polishing duties and the Miner works very closely with them. The Entry sits in Up-coming Entries, and the Poem sits in up-coming Underguide Entries, and in the fullness of time each of them appears on the Front Page. Glory! Joy! etc!

From a Miner's-eye-view they see the Poem in AWW. They comment on it, and read the other comments. It gets to be their turn to vote, and they vote for it OFF SITE in the Miners' mailgroup. When enough votes (3 has been suggested) have been given to the Poem it is Picked and the email goes out, etc etc etc. Miners can also vote *against* an entry, and this is the key to keeping up quality. We have not bashed out the final details on how many votes are needed before the decision is taken that the entry is 'in' or 'out', so this process needs some work on it.



>>> PROTO-group

> This is served by the MSN community at the moment. When most of the issues have been ironed out, we could launch a group as an h2g2 group rather than a quasi-entity.


Ye-es. Though the voting will need to take place in a group which is only open to Miners, and the MSN group is (a) taking up some of my MSN disk space and (b) open, and I think it should remain open for the time being. I would like to see an Italic-run mailgroup alongside the ones you already run for the other volunteers.



> *** Mullings and Notes ***

> The Committee - I've seen postings of a committee around. This may be out of date, if so ignore me. What function would a committee serve that a review forum doesn't? I just don't want to see a great scheme bogged down by an over-hierarchical structure.

Dunno what you mean by a committee - it may be the UG Editor persona. See below.


> As for the UG Editor persona, I can't stress enough the importance of this being in as few hands as possible. A maximum of three is recommended. Any more than that and you are in danger of losing track of postings etc. Please trust us on this one. The three people who have access to this should be editorially aware, community aware and scout savvy. In the long run it will make your jobs a lot easier.

I agree with you on this. The original 6 names came about simply because it was a neat way of choosing and likely not to cause too many arguments. In practice I suspect that more than one of us will volunteer-out of that group. Can we discuss this amongst ourselves for a while?

> Something else you will need to work into your ethos and discuss with Shazz is how the UG is different from the Post. To avoid any clashes in the future, it would be good to reference this now.

This has been discussed. We do occupy some of the same air-space, that is for sure. I think most of us see the Post as a place for more time-dependent stuff. In fact thinking about it I should offer her my entry on the London March on the 15th, on the basis that it is not really an UG entry. Shazz is a member of the MSN group, and is keeping us abreast of what is and has been and will be in the Post.

However, I do agree with you that this is an issue. I think it may remain one though.

> I realize that this posting is full of my worries, but please don't take any offence because none is intended. I want to see this scheme work, which is why I want to pose these questions now.

Oh - I didn't mean to worry you! I hope this helps. Others will have lots to add, I am sure, so I will point them here.



Ben

I have been pointed, Ben, I'll give you my opinion in a few months, when I'm finished reading all of this

by the way, will someone tell me who is picking the miners? I assumed it was Ben, GTB and all of those people whose names escape me (I call them the fantastic four, even though I count five) I don't have the slightest idea of who, while it's unofficial. I asked this at the thread for volunteering, and no one gave me a clear response.

just wants to know who to brown-nose

Actually, I don't think we'd decided that. I think most of the volunteer groups are pretty easy about accepting, and willing to give volunteers the benefit of the doubt. I'm ok with a 'tactful until proven brash' policy.

Then again, I (and others) are in the somewhat odd position of designing and building a ship which we don't intend to pilot, but merely to serve on as crew. Ashley, do you have any thoughts on this question, of who picks the Miners?


GTB

following the trail, plus some immediate comments.

Saving the fingernails - very good suggestion. Ben has my vote as UK representative, I think she probably has the best overview on all this.

Momentum - yes it is an issue but we also need to take the time it takes to get this right.

The UG has to be of sufficient quality for it to succeed - absolutely. One key to this is getting and keeping the number of UG featured entries per week, and the number of votes a miner has, in balance with the available material.

UG Persona. "The three people who have access to this should be editorially aware, community aware and scout savvy" - Yes, and to be known by and have the confidence of the staff. I've already volunteered to stand down if we're cutting the numbers. I've left it open only because if the work load is an issue I'll share the workload.

The Post - Like Ben I see the Post as catering for pieces which are more ephemeral in nature than the UG will cater for. There is no reason why suitable UG entries could not be featured the Post, and vice versa. The only way I see the Post suffering is if authors volunteer their work there less often. Hopefully that will be more than compensated for by a more active AWW/APR drawing in more writing and by miners pointing suitable articles to the Post.

For the rest I'm listening with interest and without disagreement.
Waz

I'd say have a vote of the current miners, but that only creates more problems. I am inclined to agree with you on trusting people, at least until the UG becomes a larger deal. Perhaps the leaders appoint the very first UVs and then a designated TRUSTED person to choose UVs, at least while it's unoffical, then we can let the italics decide what to do.

There's my

Jodan, my thoughts on accepting miners are identical to GTB's. We don't know yet. We're not really even sure who 'we' are yet . A definite Founder Miners group, officially set up or not, would help to get some of these decisions made.

We ought to decide if there's a limit on the number of volunteers, fairly quickly? Ben has mentioned an initial group of ten or twelve I think. Volunteers after that number could be kept on a waiting list until the scheme is more complete.
Waz

1) There are a lot of fine issues to be wrinkled that will not be easily resolved by debate. The UG needs some recognizable figures of authority. These need not be totalitatian, but decisive. This is one of the reasons democracy suffers, indecisiveness.

2) If we're going to have a leader or leaders of this facet, I propose the following criteria, TRUSTWORTHY, RECOGNIZABLE, INNOVATIVE, FAIR, KNOWS THE SUBJECT, and IS VERY ACTIVE/RELIABLE

3) an important property of a leader is his or her unwillingness to settle. If we get a leader, he or she ought to always be looking for new entries and criticizing them as well, or he or she will lose touch.

Another of my (That's , until they make that smiley)

I have just realised what the UG Editors persona is for. It is for semi official announcements including the one which says - but tactfully - that an entry is not of a good enough standard for the UG and should be removed from AWW.

The Miners vote and Polish the Gems. The real live Italics send the emails, and choose which entry goes on the front page when. And the UG Editors are the 'most hated'.

How the hell did we get lumbered with that role? I think I am going to un-volunteer from the Persona....

B

By what criteria will an entry have to be sent packing from AWW? More votes against than votes for, including at least 3 against? Or should an entry like that hang around until tastes change?

I don't think we need to be that complicated Jordan.

I think we do this on a basis of acceptance and trust. If someone does not 'get' it, then either the Italics (when they run the scheme) or one of the team running the UG Eds persona (until the Italics run the scheme) have a quiet word offsite by email. It should only be suggested that someone resign as a Miner if they persistantly breache the code of conduct or persistantly fail to make their picks.

Just my thoughts.

B

Begin
I think (And i do a lot of thinking when I'm desperately bored, even though I'm certain you don't want me to) that if an entry has votes for, then it should be reworked or helped out if the against voters issue is the wording, or things like that, but if the against voters *VALID* issue is the topic or that it just wasn't good enough, it should just be cast aside
End

Observation

The thing that troubles me most about this voting system is 1) It isn't very decisive 2) There are no extremities 3) With a limited number of votes per miner, an entry could become an issue of debate, and hypothetically, a lot of miners could lose a lot of votes on one issue 4) It's hard to keep track of

(Tell me if you've already covered this)

alright, I'm just saying, your system of trust leaves a lot of room for error. (And I say that in the nicest way possible, though it may not come across as such)

"your system of trust leaves a lot of room for error" - Don't I know it!

We will probably go with whatever the Italics say on this one. They have been running volunteer schemes for a while now, and they do know what works and what doesn't. I am not a volunteer, so I don't know from first hand how they work.

Anyone want to comment on this?

B

(At the risk of being considered a thread clogger) The Italics are just the kind of people I meant when I said We need a definable leader (I forget what I really said, but it was something like that) to make these decisions.

However, we can't rely on the italics, and create more work for them.