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

When you asked if we'd read your proposal I said ouch. I read it when you first proposed it 6 weeks ago, then I stood well back.

Firstly, as Pin delights in pointing out, I complexify things. Secondly, my muddy hands are all over the document, it didn't seem wise for them to be all over the conversation threads too. Thirdly, it's half a decade since I wrote anything for h2g2. And fourthly and more important than the rest, I trust you.

Ben's top tip. Give it to me when it's stabilised. Don't wait for everyone and everyone and everyone to agree. It just has to not contain known barrels of dynamite.

Be of good courage, mon brave. Things are changing.

B

I wouldn't worry, I'm not really one to wait for total agreement, or incorporate ideas that I think aren't right.

What I'd really like to see, and what I'd hope to see when I made that document, were competing visions by others who disagree with me completely about the process. It would have been messier, but also better, I think.

Gnomon's bought in, given the caveats he's stipulated already.

I think the real objections came from a specific generation of rather unimaginative Italics, Anna, Ashley, and so on, in about 2003-2004. They left, but the UG was in place by then.

But you are right, I'd like to see feed back / push back from the current generation of subs and scouts. One (I can't remember who) told Z to bog off and stop giving people false hope, but that was a while ago. But I think there may be an assumption that The Site Will Die, The Site Will Die.

It's tricky. We can't win them round if they won't engage, but if they are that nihilistic (and rude) do we want to win them round anyway?

I think that when it comes to it, people will be unnerved by not having detailed Guidelines. But we can cross that bridge when we come to it. It's not writing by bloody numbers.

Personally, I think it was an argument won in 2006 or so, when the UG started consistently publishing good stuff, but the BBC never caught up with us, and the current generation of Italics are quite rightly keeping out of the debate.

It's an open door we're pushing on. Don't fall through.

Ben

"Jordan, I'm sorry, but I think you are going to have to get over yourself on this. I can see that the word "editor" scrapes on your nerves like nails on a blackboard, but I honestly think that's just you. Or may be just you and Pin."

Ben, your attempt to impose such a petty motive on me is both insulting and inaccurate. I say that respectfully, and I'm not upset (it takes more than that to upset me ), but you should know that you have insulted me (whether you've meant to or not) by claiming that I'm placing my personal prejudices (which you seem to have greatly exaggerated) above the well-being of h2g2.

I've been continually saying that I oppose the title of "Editor" *not* because of some ideological dislike of Editors (remember that I was a UG Editor for years, and that my Volunteer proposal suggested several Editors) but because I think that the word "Editor" in no way describes the Editorial Volunteer role we seem to have agreed upon. I further believe, whether the term is familiar to other internet users or not, it would be confusing because their conceptions of what an editor is (which are independent of any wikipedia or OED definition) would not match the actual volunteer role.

I also don't appreciate (to assign a motive to you) your attempt to moderate this discussion in such a condescending way. Having not been involved in the editorial side of this site in years, I'm not sure what qualifies you to moderate any part of this discussion - other than sheer force of will and intelligence (which you certainly have in abundance). I don't believe I need a moderator to tell me what my motives are, and that I need to be quiet.

Perhaps it's time to bring back

Jordan, I apologise to you unreservedly, I said it how I read it and I clearly read it wrong. I apologise to you for that and because I did not mean to offend you.

I need to understand the root of the problem causing the disagreement between you and HN. I've not had time to take a really good look at your proposal; I looked at quickly several times and moved it into the GBD, but I've not given it the attention it deserves.

So I am sorry. I'm not sure what to do, though I will try to make time tomorrow evening to really unpack your proposal and see what it looks like.

Processes, roles and responsibilities is my daily bread, so I'll see what I can do. I've been doing to much and deliberately stepping back. I don't want my name all over everything.

Ben