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

Do you want my honest answer to that quetion?

I think what we've got here is special and that everyone who participates should be able to vote. But *only* those who participate. Reading is participating too, though.

So, no, I don't think my idea is over-complicated. I think it protects elections from from being swamped by - I don't know - someone's entire set of FaceBook Friends doiong it for a bet.

Ben

I agree with Ben and I like the point system she suggests. Everyone can easily understand it.

I think what we're defining here is what the constituency is.

Everyone who is affected by the outcome of the election ought to be able to vote in it.

In real elections it's easy to work out who should be able to vote based on Geography.

I can't vote in elections for Birmingham city council as I don't live in Birmingham, I can't vote in elections for the Welsh assembly as I don't live in Wales. Neither of those facts bother me as I'm not affected by the actions of Birmingham City Council or the Welsh Assembly.

But Ulrike cannot vote in the elections in Bristol, despite living there for 15 years, because she isn't British. She could take out citizenship (join the site, post in conversations) but she chooses not to.

But the 50 fb friends Ben mentions are certainly not affected, still they could vote if everyone who is signed up could vote.

It's the 50 FB friends scenario I want to avoid.

Years ago there was a hotly contested and election for the post of Editor of the UnderGuide. It's a long time ago, and as Sam Goldwyn said, we've all passed a lot of water since then, so I'll spare you the personalities and the details, but Jordan and Terran will remember it. The long and the short of it is that the UG would have been (a) very differnet and (b) almost certainly a LOT less successful if it had been possible for someone to muster 50 facebook friends the week before the election.

But.... readers contribute to the site by reading, and may care a lot about who runs the site, and we should recognsie that. And we should also recognise that conversations are a vital part of the creativitiy of the site.

This is a balance of the two.

Ben

One more thing to think about:
Now -with the BBC- we can see how long a Researcher has been with us and how many and what contributions he/she/it has made.

It is not entirely unthinkable that the BBC can not or will not hand over this information when the site has moved away from the BBC to a different host.
How do we then differentiate between well intentioned Researchers and FB-flooders?

Perhaps someone versed in scripting could cobble something up to harvest these statistics from the current situation and hand the results to the h2g2c3 ?

Jus' sinking oud lout.

Let's assume that we can get hold of this information in this debate.

hmmmm...
Z, that either implies you know more but can't say OR you ignore the contingency plan.
Knowing you and your passion for h2g2 and the community I assume the first and am worried a little less for the future of h2g2.

Yes, readers are affected, but how do we know that someone has read a lot? I think our only chance is to hope they will comment on Entries or even in PR.

Readers vote with every click. Site statistics can be harvested. As long as we have a diverse selection of quality reading material to offer,

Haragai -

There's no need to speculate and read between the lines. But this is a discussion about what values the community needs to measure, not how we can do it, which is a different discussion.

Call me dense, but I'm not understanding some fundamental elements of the last 40 or 50 posts.

If we're starting from scratch as a new, community-run entity, then on day one no one will have accumulated any points at all, so no one will be able to vote in the election to choose the editors who will run the site. How will we get off the ground, with no editors?

Or, are people assuming that we're carrying over the original dates of joining H2G2 under the aegis of either the BBC or Digital Village?

Or, are people assuming that the Committee will appoint provisional editors to run the place for a few months until a formal vote can be taken? I hope that that's the assumption, because a lot of growing pains will be happening to us in those first few months.

>> this is a discussion about what values the community needs to measure, not how we can do it,

Yep. First rule of requirements analysis, go for the "whats" and ignore the "hows".

Second rule of requirements analysis is to provide cakes or cookies at the workshops.

OK, looks like I'm ignoring the first rule here, but, for the first election only, why not run it here? We'd have to make it clear somehow that any election results are contingent on h2g2c2 winning the bid, though.

To make up for breaking the first rule... *drags in large basket of mufflewhumps*

Of course.Though we could form h2g2c2 the user group even if h2g2 didn't win the bid. That would mean that whoever owned h2g2 could have elected community representatives to deal with.

Elected community representatives would be a good thing to have anyway.

>> ... this is a discussion about what values the community needs to measure ...

Oh. Well. Sorry to derail the discussion with a point.
Do I need to re-adjust my worry-level back again?

And now for something serious:
So far I've seen five criteria mentioned and rehashed:
1. Attendance
2. Activity
3. Contribution
4. Volunteering
5. Registration

Four of these can only be 'measured' for registered users, also known as Researchers, because only they can be active in the conversations, contribute entries, volunteer and be registered.

There has been talk of pulling apart the role of the current editors, a.k.a. italics, and divide it into separate units for instance : moderator, editor, id-manager.
We can decide to have a set of criteria for whom gets to vote, but do we not also need a set of criteria for each of the roles to be voted into? I think this point is talked about in a different thread so excuse the distraction.

The (off-topic) point above made me think: Do we need different criteria for whom gets to vote for a particular position?
An example: To vote for an editor one would have to be a researcher for at least a year with a certain amount of activity, say one approved entry and a couple of discussions.
Another example: To vote for a moderator one would have to be a researcher for at least 6 months with a few discussions and regular attendance (logged-in visits).

ummm... this sparked another thought: Can we only vote 'in favor' or can we also vote 'against' nominees ?
Suppose we have three candidates and I do not care about candidate number 2 and I am ok with candidate number 1 and 3. Can I vote 'against' candidate number 2 to raise the chances for number 1 and 3 alike ?

Just something thrown in so we stay on the voting track.

I have a nagging feeling that we're setting the bar kind of high regarding eligibility for voting. In the country I live in (the U.S.), anyone who has the good luck to be born within the country's borders becomes eligible to hire (i.e. vote for) the President of the whole country a couple decades later. If there ever was a job that required huge amounts of talent, this is it, but my country lets anyone -- well-educated, not well-educated, sane, crazy, etc. vote for this position. There are ways for people not born in the U.S. to also get the vote, but nobody makes them run a marathon or publish a book (or guide entry) in order to enter that ballot box.

Voting is a matter of trust. As individuals, we may be off the wall, but as a group we are presumed to have enough of a pool of wisdom that we can be relied on to select our leaders. I'm sorry, but I don't think a "citizen" of H2G2 should have to produce an edited guide entry in order to qualify for a vote. It matters more to me that people *want* to vote, because it means that they care. I would like to attract people who care to this site. I trust them (there's the word "trust" again) to rise to the occasion when their help is needed, even if it means learning to do some hard stuff.

Well, there's suffrage and then there's being a voting member. I can vote in these elections:

My natural food coop
The local public radio station
A large insurance company in which I own stock
One of my former employers in which I own stock

So there are different qualifications beyond just being over the age of 18. Only paid up members of the first two can vote, but the the public radio station accepts volunteer hours as payment. Only stockholders in the second two can vote. In all four cases I'm contributing to the organization.

It's reasonable to ask a member to contribute to the well being of our community. The question becomes, how much.

The radio station offers a membership for $50 or 6 hours of work. That isn't unreasonable.