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

ACEs will have their job made earlier when we are no longer part of BBCiD. While I have some ideas of how technology changes will make their job work better, the actual roles of the ACEs doesn't need to change much in the early days. We'll just have technology that helps rather than hinders which will *feel* different but not affect how we operate.

I agree with Lanzababy here.

We should initially get a flexible group who would be able to take on a variety of roles and work together. Then as we find out what the different jobs are we can parcel them off and ask people take them on.

For example one job might be selecting an entry from the 'ready' list and creating a link on the front page.

I know that the visible work by the h2g2c2 committee many not look much but there has been a *huge* amount of behind the scenes work on all sorts of things that we aren't able to talk about. The fact that we have managed to achieve all this really has increased my faith in our ability to deliver. We have been managed to collaborate very very well using our googlegroup and google docs plus occasional skype calls.



That said we need to think about whether it makes sense for one split. There may be some people, who might be existing curators, to take on editorial roles without community involvement. I know that they may not want to get involved in moderation issues or pouring oil on troubled flame wars but they can edit entries well, they know which scout picks are suitable and what's suitable for the front page.

Yes, but if you look at the work the Interim Committee has done, it's been a mix of tasks done by individuals, tasks done by groups but co-ordinated by an individual, and review and discussions.

So first HN then 2Legs looked after the Twitter Feed; Magwitch co-ordinated the section-by-section proofreading; I co-ordinated the whole book profreading; Tav's done the design work and so on. In fact the only really shared activity has been Pastey and Tav's work on the shop.

The reason the Gmail group has - golly - 4466 messages is because we've been discussing things . The actual doing things has been the easy bit! And people have tended to be fairly consistent in what they've done, concentrating on what they are good at, and trusting other people to do the things THEY are good at.

B

So what I am saying here is that I believe that dividing the activities up into groups of tasks is a good approach. Sure we need people to be flexible, but people gravitate naturally to the specific tasks they are interested in and good at. If we don't split the tasks out into groups, then we make it harder for people to volunteer to help.

"A map of the site on the Front Page you say? Excuse me but isn't that what the Community Central is for? I would vote to feature it on the FP (to keep the conversation on voting)." [Haragai]

I'm into maps, Haragai. The Marauders' Map in Harry Potter, the Map of Middle Earth in Tolkien, etc. To me, a map is a picture that's worth 1,000 words.

The idea is to get people interested in exploring as many parts of H2G2 as we can.

If we don't have a map, then can we at least have wonderful images next to the different choices in Community Central? Restaurants know that words on a menu aren't half as useful as pictures of delicious food next to them.

A map at the Community Central would be an idea I guess. If we can get it look right. I wouldn't put it on the front page, but of course the Front Page would have a direct link to the Community Central so it should not be hard to find.

Not had chance to catch up with the backlog...

1) How would you manage an election to ensure one person one vote?
Is tricky, and you may still have to rely on an element of trust. I've seen it where the votes are emailed to a single account (e.g. an ennumarator/secretary role) who then reply only to aknowledge the vote has been recieved.

Screename
Vote for X position (sometime ranked in a PR style vote)
Vote for Y position
Vote for Z position

2) Who should be allowed to vote? What do we mean by 'a member of the site'?

A member of the site. I have seen this on other online based communities that it is anyone who has registered an account the day before *nominations* for the election open. Requirements for posting or 'contributing' in some way to make you elegible to vote would exclude lurkers which are still a part of the site. Those requirements are sound for people standing for a particular position, however the elecorate should be as broad as possible. I can see why making them 'work' for the vote is appealing, but you're basically bribing people to contribute to the site to vote - so how many would turn up, post a very short entry on something (copy paste from somewhere else) and then vote. Not hard to rig

3) How often should the Editorial and Community team stand for re-election ? All of them once a year? A third of them every year? Anyone who's been a member for more than 2 years?

I'd suggeste that a third of them every year is good - allows for some continuity and some fresh ideas. Obviously to begin with you'd have to draw straws to decide which third is up for re-election after only one year. Minimum terms might also be good - say no more than two sucessive terms (e.g. 6 years) without a break.

4) How would you, how could you rig the election?
If I knew that do you think i'd tell? Sockpuppets I guess.

I have been investigating how you can secure online elections, there are ways to flag up 'possible multiple accounts'. None of them are foolproof but they are ways to indicate a problem, and ways that the average person wouldn't be able to work around.

Chat rooms often have to prove to the police that the accounts of 3 15 year old girls are actually run by one 48 year old man, and there are methods of doing this. Methods that are accepted as evidence in a court of law to beyond reasonable doubt.

Clearly we could only do this if we could access the actual records of the site, so not before we change from the BBC.

Right, my twopenneth worth...

Upon takeover, the existing committee should appoint an interim executive committee and appoint the various operational roles. (I'm thinking of about half a dozen positions - Chairman, Tech Director, Editor-in-chief, Senior Community Editor, Marketing Director. Each of these people will be responsible for recruiting volunteers (starting with the existing volunteer systems as a base)

If required, add a second 'assistant' to each 'department'

--------------

After a pre-defined 'settling in' period (6 months?) each and every committe post should come up for renewal.

I'd suggest that the first step would be a simple 'should the person carry on or be replaced' vote (vote of confidence/noconfidence) using the software linked to on the first page of this forum

Voting rights being limited to those users fulfilling a pre-defined set of criteria (the points system previously put forward).

If the person holding the post receives a vote of confidence, the process stops there and they carry on in their position... (unless the reason the post is coming up for renewal is that the existing committee member wants to quit).

--------------------

After the first six month period, committee positions should have a fixed tenure - we'd have to stagger this slightly to avoid mass changes in staffing. But each and every member of the committee should be subject to a vote of no confidence / confidence every 18 months.

---------------------



When a committee post comes up for renewal (either because of a resignation or the end of a tenure and failure of a no-confidence vote), the community should be asked to produce a shortlist of potential candidates - this list of names could be produced openly on-site, however, those applying or being nominated would have to meet an even stricter list of criteria:
- Existing member of the committee
or
- Member of a volunteer group for a minimum length of time
and
- Active member of the site for a minimum length of time

And for a name to be accepted it must receive a minimum number of nominations from active volunteers (Aces, Gurus, Scouts, Sub-editors)

Once a shortlist is produced publically by the users of the site there are two alternatives...

The list is put to a public vote - using the off-site sofware previously mentioned (first page of this forum) and the same set of requirements used for the vote of no confidence

or, and personally I prefer this system, but I know a lot of people won't:

The new committee member should be chosen from the shortlist by the existing committee members.

Very interesting Whisky

Not wishing to draw you into a debate, but can I ask why you prefer an "Executive Committee" model to a model based on a series of teams (Editorial Team/Community Team/Tech Team) each with co-equal members?

A camel is a horse designed by a committee

Personally I'd like to keep the 'ultimate authority' for the site limited to the smallest number of people possible... with a larger pool of volunteers working under them (the current aces, gurus, scouts, subs etc.)

Either the job description of the gurus would have to be expanded to cover voluntary 'code monkeys' or we'd have to create a new volunteer group to cover that particular area (Apes? )

Aces might be expanded to have a moderating role as well

The problem with a large egalitarian team running the place is that you risk treading on each others toes and contradicting one another (Think of kids, if Mum tells them they can't have something, first thing they do is run off and ask Dad for the same thing).

By keeping the highest decision-making team as small as possible, you limit the potential of disagreements/cliques/etc. forming within the leadership itself...

As the committee would be smaller, and more importantly, unpaid part-time volunteers themselves, they'd have to rely on the existing volunteers to help with the day-to-day running of the place, but at least, in the event of a major problem, there'd be a better chance of a centralised, coherent message coming from on high rather than having sneaky users contacting two dozen adminstrators individually until they found one who agreed with their point of view...

Benign dictatorship rather than chaotic attempt at democracy/communism

Oh, and if you're worried about a chairman suddenly developing a super-inflated ego and starting to make silly decisions for personal gain, you could always build a 'get-out clause' into the site's constitution (I assume there's going to be some kind of written constitution).

A pre-defined number (or percentage) of volunteers (not committee members) can call for a vote of no-confidence in any member of the committee at any time.

>>> A camel is a horse designed by a committee

A camel is extremely well adapted to its environment.

By demanding that the highest decision-making team be so small as to prevent disagreements/cliques/etc. forming within the leadership itself, you may also prevent the volunteers from having enough authority to execute their offices. You may be insisting on an autocratic structure suitable for a Roman legion, but not so well adapted for an international group of researchers building a Guide.

Well, the volunteer groups have all the authority the committee allows them to have... A level of authority I suspect will be much greater than is currently the case. (Moderation tools for aces, full editing tools for scouts and subs, etc.)

Think of the system as it runs now, but with users having the ability to fire the italics...

To resort to stereotypes and clichés... At the end of the day, any organisation needs one person, sat there drinking coffee out of a 'World's best boss' mug with a sign on their desk saying 'The buck stops here'

If that one person is confronted with a committee of forty people, all of equal ranks but with differing agendas, differing ideas for how the site should be run and differing levels of commitment - nothing's ever going to get done.
What you get then is:
Boss > Room-full of shouty-people > users


If you introduce a layer-cake approach
Boss > Small Committee > Volunteers > Users then you stand a far better chance of getting things done, and there's a clear line of command, where everyone knows who they can contact to get a decision made on something.


Of course, this is all just personal opinion - from someone who's purposely _not_ involved in any way in the current attempts to take over the site.

Well, we have a committee of about 20 people at the moment and I can say we're getting loads of stuff done.

>>>Well, we have a committee of about 20 people at the moment and I can say we're getting loads of stuff done.

True, but at the moment you've got the advantage of a common target, you're all working towards the survival of the site and the possibility of it being self-governing...

Once that aim is achieved, and it comes down to 'does this one particular message break the house rules and should we ban the little so-and-so that posted it', having a committee of twenty different people make decisions like that is going to be a nightmare.

----------

On a separate note I've just realised one thing about my model - there ain't enough space in it for all those people who are currently working like maniacs at saving the site - which even I'll agree is not right...

How about this for an 'edited version'

Level 1:
Boss (one person - the buck stops here)

Level 2:
Executive committee (finance, marketing, editor in chief, community editor, IT)

Level 3:
Volunteer groups (managed by the various Level 2 personnel) responsible for the day-to-day running of the site
AND
User Committee (a sort of user's trade union) - with the same rights as the volunteer groups to call for a vote of no confidence in any member of the executive committee - broadly responsible for pointing the executive committee in the direction the users want the site to go.

Membership of the user committee could be organised in very much the same way as the membership of the current volunteer groups is organised...

That's pretty close to the system we've proposed.

At first we proposed a system rather like your first idea where the volunteers did a lot of extra work. However a lot of the current volunteers don't want the extra power, they'd rather things carried on as they were. Then there was a huge lack of agreement over what exact roles the volunteers would do, or even what to call them. There was also a big feeling that this was too much change at once.

We realised that there would be enough of an disruption transferring the website without causing this much change on top of it.

So we decided that could initially have a small number of 'Interim Eds' volunteers who'd replace the italics initially. Then we could delegate the tasks down to the volunteers that were willing and work out how it would all work.

The first step would be to transition the site to the new site, transfer all the user accounts across, carry on publishing content, finding how *exactly* how much work was involved in being an italic..

Then once that was all stable we could start to work out how the best way to do the roles was. Some of it we could delegate to the users. Some we couldn't.

As we explained here http://www.bbc.co.uk/entry/A82959105: We'd have a legal entity that would have a board, like any company that was elected at an AGM they'd have overall responsibility to the members of a legal entity. These are the people that Ben referred to as the Business Strategy or admin team or The Board. So for big decisions the buck stops with them.

Legally you can't just have a chair, you need a treasurer and secretary as well, we should also have a techy guy or gal on the board as well.

The board would have a chair person with whom the buck would stop, they would be accountable to the members of the legal entity. (This is how all limited companies work, the board are accountable to the shareholders, if we were a not for profit we'd be accountable to the members - the user committee that you mentioned).



On a day to day basis we'd have the people that would run the site and replace the current italics roles. (This would be small committee probably only about 5 people in total).

They'd then manage the volunteers etc..

So basically, I'm joining the debate two months late and going round in circles before ending up suggesting something you've already hashed out!

Serves me right for procrastinating!


Ok then, the only thing you haven't covered in your post is how to protect the site from an ego-maniac gettting themselves elected to the board by creating false accounts ... That's where I'm worried, so we're back to putting some kind of safeguard between the user's voting and the top end site management... That software on the first page helps a little, but I still think the interim committee, or 'trusted' members of the site (volunteers?) need some kind of veto on any public vote which is open to the whole site.

And my first action - as a member of the site - will be to stalk, hassle and abuse all members of the committee until we get a harris smiley... I'm fed up of spelling < rofl > wrong!