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

We should probably ask Graham S about this. I know his site has members of the legal entity voting, but I suspect there are some wrinkles to that too.

To be honest, if we put some kind of limitations to voting (length of service/ contribution) in place, if someone gores to all the trouble of rigging the vote to the extent that it matters, I am inclined to say great. It shows they care.

An internet acquaintance went for a job a year or two ago which involved putting a video up on the site of the company and getting people to vote for it. The point wasn't to make the best video. The point was to show you could garner support though social media by getting the most votes (because this was the eventual job - bigging up the company through social media). In the end it turned out they had a final rule they didn't tell anyone about, which was that it was votes plus links back to their website. So even if you had persuaded all your friends to open sixteen million new hotmail accounts or whatever, unless you had also arranged for sixteen million unique links, you were out. That was the way they balanced the books. Mind you it only worked because they didn't tell people about the extra requirement in advance. Still.

Still, it'll be harder to rig the more people involved in the website. And while the community is still relatively small, given what a lot of work it is going to be for the first set of eds, I'd be inclined to give it to the first five people who didn't step backwards smartly enough, let alone worrying about whether they had been so passionate they had organised a few extra votes.

My two cents on voting is that there won't be any stuffing unless the election turns from a 'Who's best qualified' to a 'Who's most popular'. We're all adults round here despite some of the antics that folks get up to so expecting fairness might be the best approach to take.

Instead the focus should be on qualifcations for standing. It was addressed earlier and it probley bears more towards how things will work after the process is done. If the vote comes down to a popularity contest, in the end it'll be the most prolific and charismatic rather than most qualified who say yea or nay and it doesn't matter if your governing body is a Congress or a Parliament we all know how that turns out in the end.

One last thing. If it were up to me I'd treat this a a coup, install a set of qualified and dedicated people to run the show for the first year or so then worry about democracy when the site can afford to spare the time and energy to do so. It's not as if we elected those currently in charge so would be closer to the status quo and less likely to cause ripples when we can least afford them.

Ok -

If you had to do a 'job' description for an elected Editor what would it be?

Should we have someone to do community and someone to do editorial?
How many for each? (I think three for each)

Someone in overall charge? (I think so, possibly me if elected, actually VIP would be better at it.. if elected).

Should we have people to do both - as happens currently.

For community:

1. Able to see things from other's perspective, and not get involved in petty disputes.
2. Able to take a step back and pour oil on troubled waters, and try and keep everyone happy.

For editorial...

Someone fill this in for me..

Why do it?

CV - excellent if you want to get into new media or journalism.
...
Getting to see your name in italics.

Only if we have people who are qualified and willing to stand. That's probably my biggest fear, actually, that nobody will actually want to take this on.

Can I take this very slightly off topic and ask who in this thread would?

I think I would. I would be interested in being part of the Business Team.

Anyone else prepared/able to put in the hours to be an Editor or part of the Business Team (remembering you'll have to declare your real name for that)?

I would, both business and community teams.

Not me for the Editorial and Community Team. Probably not the Business Team either. I'm tired.

That said, the showcase / collection is a bit of a pet project and I really do want to see it in the shops this Christmas. But I'd rather it happened without any additional effort from me...

Ben

I don't think you can be on both, Z. You've gotta pick. I'd happily stand as a Community Editor as well, but if I had to pick...

Is there any reason you can't be on both? Apart from common sense and preservation of sanity.

I think we should have an overall Editor who is on both..

Lanzababy's already asked this, but what would the teams do exactly?

Tavaron created a page a while ago of all the tasks that need doing to run h2g2. It would be good to group the tasks together into roles.

As I see it - a role would be like being an Ace or a Scout - so more than one person could it it, and one person could do more than one.

er....

......did that make sense?

In my head the Business Team were separate from the Editors. Now you mention it, I guess they could be in the same person as long as that person had the time to devote to both roles.

I certainly think that the Business Team has a rep from the Editors, just so they don't operate in isolation from each other.

I just found this on another thread I wrote a while back as job descriptions for the Eds. Not comprehensive, of course.




Editorial
=========

-Choose Entries from the Scout list
-Allocate those Entries to Subs, and remove the Entry from PR
-Receive polished Entries back, check them for House Rules/BBC standard
-Use the Photographers and Artists to get an image created for the Entry, then get it blobbed for h2g2
-Publish to Front Page and change status to Approved
-Categorise the Entry in LtU&E and add to Front Page archive.

-Oversee all Entries in the process to check nothing is forgotten or left with a Sub too long etc.
-Keep up in Peer Review to ensure that worthy Entries are not left languishing
-Oversee the Curators and make sure that EF is working


Community
=========

-Respond to moderation queries that are forwarded to them by the moderation team.
-Deal with complaints and comments
-Arrange the Talking Point each week, and try to get those who comment to stay on-site
-Keep the Community up to date with developments (where able, obviously!)
-Keep an eye on conversations that are going on in the most publically viewable areas to make sure that they are going OK, not getting too flame-y and that any new commenters are being welcomed
-Make sure that the ACEs are working the way they should and that new members are being welcomed

Other
=====

-Record stats or manage stats to be able to report progress to higher-ups
-Plan long term strategies for the future of h2g2
-Liase with the technical team to keep h2g2 running smoothly

I think the idea is that all the current volunteer positions stay as they are (for now), with the current Editors being replaced by a combination of elected Editors (deal with the Editorial Process and the Community interaction) and the Business Team, who deal with finance and so on.

I do think the volunteer schemes should remain the same for now. Too much change is going to be very cofusing.

I also think it should be / remain easy for new volunteer schemes to form, like the Post did and the UnderGuide volunteers.

Ben

As long as there is a job that needs filling, people will try to help. We hope...

One thing I've just realised I'm slightly concerned about is if people hold multiple roles it could mean that power is vested in the hands of very few. This a) could be problematic in itself, but also b) make people think that they aren't needed 'because Vip and Z have it all sorted out'. That's something we need to avoid at all costs, I think. We need to have a selection of people with different opinions to make sure issues are worked out fairly and with as many views as possible. If there's jsut a few people voted in, they may not even realise that their view isn't widely held.

Noooo..

Other volunteers is a GOOD THING.. is there any one else around who would, at the moment, consider standing?

If I had the time, I'd consider standing for a Community Editor position.

We could invite people to name their sock puppets, and then make sure that the sock puppets don't vote.

Or, we could have a sternly-worded statement about the virtues of honesty and the sanctity of voting. We could appeal to people's concerns about their karma or their chances of getitng into the afterlife of their choice if they vote more than once.

Pah. If I know that was your game, paul, I wouldn't name mine.

Oh, and yay for Amy.

I would definitely be interested in standing under normal circumstances, but being realistic, I've been off work since Christmas (when I was told I should be fit within three weeks)and I'm still not cleared to return. When I am declared fit I have to schedule an operation for a lump to be removed from my other leg. Recovery time for that is 'two to three weeks if all goes well'. You'll forgive me if I'm not convinced about that, the pain from my leg was the main reason I gave up being a union rep - I was getting stress from walking, never mind working. I think my main priorities for this year have to be to recover from my illness and spend less time in front of the computer screen until I've built up my fitness level until it ceases to worry me, which it does, given my (so far) five months of enforced sedentary life.