[textop] Re: Steward-program
- From: "Larry Sanger" <larry.sanger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <textop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:02:01 -0700
Hi Matthias,
Thanks for making the first non-test post on the list! We have something
like a dozen people on the list right now. Probably not quite a quorum, but
a respectable start. One thing I intend to do in the next few weeks is
spread the word about the project on various mailing lists, and we might
also do a press release--so expect numbers on this list to start ballooning.
I might be asking you all to participate in this "get the word out" effort,
if you're willing.
Just don't announce this project yet; we're saving the announcement until
after May 15, which is a big Digital Universe launch.
Anyway, Matthias, you ask an important set of questions, which I have
purposely not addressed on textop.org: I wanted to have a community started
before talking about how the community should be organized.
You're right that "Text and Collaboration" in at least one place might make
it sound as if I'm opposed to special editorial roles, but further down I
hope I made it clearer that in fact I am in favor of a *combination* of
openness and meritocratic oversight.
I don't think that the editors of Textop should be called "Stewards." This
term has a specific meaning in the DU context (which you can learn about
here: http://collab.digitaluniverse.net/wiki/Stewardship_Program). I would
prefer "editor."
Now to comment on Matthias' substantive proposals:
> 1) When we choose a steward for an area, or for a book an important aspect
is if the candidate has background in that area, and how strong that is.
Yes, absolutely.
> 3) Stewards can be nominated from above and also by anybody else. A
nomination from above certainly has a great impact.
Perhaps. The more fundamental question is a more general one: how, i.e.,
through what process should editors be chosen?
> 4) Stewards are appointed after elections. Some kind of rules of voting
have to be constructed.
Perhaps, but this is only one part of the puzzle. Another part is: who
votes? For what it's worth, I had anticipated making "Editorial Groups,"
organized by subject area (e.g., philosophy, history, law, etc.), having
their own mailing lists. I think that, once enough people are involved,
those groups ought each to have an Editorial Committee made up of university
faculty and other equally expert people, which elects their own members and
selects editors for particular texts. This is the "meritocratic" part of my
notion of project governance.
> 5) Stewards are responsible for their area.
> 6) Stewards have to have technical possibilities and rights to maintain
their area.
That's right. But another point is that *the actual system in which work is
done* should be (1) as easy as possible to use, and (2) as open as possible,
consistent with the aim of high quality. In other words, work should not be
assigned by a text editor; it should be able to carried out "at will" by
participants who have made it past some *relatively* low barrier. This is
the "open" part of my notion of project governance.
I fully expect that most of the actual work on the Collation Project, at
least, will be done by graduate students.
> 7) Learning the lesson from Wikipedia. Each document be produced has to
have a working version, and a published version. Any collaborator may work
on the working version, but only the editor can publish it.
That's the basic idea--I think we agree on most of this, Matthias.
> 8) Stewards have to be re-elected in a periodical interval.
Perhaps. Talk of "elections" is vague.
> 9) Stewards may be banned in a democratic way, if contributors are not
satisfied with him. (More strict rules)
Which contributors? Under what rules? I would rather think that such
management decisions should be left up to a group of peers, i.e., to other
subject area leaders in the area.
> 10) Administrators can not be stewards and vice versa.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure why you say this.
> This way I think a truly democratic but structured system can be built up,
which can produce a high-quality output.
Here's a question for you. I think a point where we might disagree is in
the idea that editors might have to run for an election and win the support
of people who are not experts in their field. I think this is a recipe for
disaster. But what advantages does the more democratic system, in which
rank-and-file participants vote on editors, have?
--Larry
====textop - a Textop (http://www.textop.org) mailing list.
To post, send a mail to textop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, or just reply to this post.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to textop-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe'
in the header.
Other related posts:
