Hi All,
Long post follows with 3 points: 1 = license-talk-list; 2 = FAQ-clerk; 3 =
Community-Clerk
- - - - - - -
#1. I still think that we need a "license-specific" mailing list. We've
gotten off of that thread, but it is still looming large. That was the last
big flag I ran up the flag pole to salute, other than a suggestion of
"Public Card." But, moving right along, .....
- - - - - - -
#2. How about if we get volunteers and/or nominations and select a person to
fill the role of FAQ-Clerk? This person will be the writer/keeper/editor for
the official FAQs that are associated with this endeavor. It could be sorta
like a secretary. The archives are great, but we need to make the
discussions and then refine and boil down the outcomes in summary documents.
The FAQ documents would be the visible "OUTCOMES" of these discussions, our
legacy that is more of a welcome to new arrivals and reviews rather than the
mailing list archives.
I think we need to build upon these FAQs to make serious progress.
Furthermore, we should all make significant contributions to the FAQs -- as
well as to the mailing list(s). But then the FAQ-Clerk would be the one who
tweaks the final organization, the final wording.
- - - - - - -
<RANT>
What comes to vote, what does NOT, when, how, the nomination process, voter
education on issues, equal-time hype, and all the politcs of the decision
making is important. We need to be fair, but we need to be baby-soft in
dealing with our fragile ideas and our associated personalities.
</RANT>
#3. How about then if we get volunteers and/or nominations so we can select
a person to fill the role of COMMUNITY-Clerk? This is sorta like a "voting
organizer" -- or a clerk's office that one might have in a city-council
office. This person would be the housekeeping boss and rule on all decision
making issues on HOW to put the decision making process into action. This
person would be the one to call for a vote -- determine what should be in
the vote -- the rules for the voting -- the collection of the votes -- etc.
Then the decisions of said votes would be recrafted and put into a FAQ too.
- - - - -
As I see it, we don't need lots of votes. But, when we do, we need to have
them done in a smooth fashion so that our delicate ideas and personalities
can stay at ease. We can't turn people off with the votes -- or we'll have
no community. In the real world, the FAQ will be able to ramble along
growing by leaps and bounds just by input -- some small discussions -- more
input. Then from time to time -- we'll hit a sticking point. Enter the
"community-clerk" -- to figure out how to resolve sticking points -- and
avoid any choke points.
Note, these are collaboration roles and have NOTHING to do with the keepers
of the code. I'm sure we'll need a few "code-dictators" as well. I think
that most of the code decisions are going to be obvious, refinements might
come -- but they'll be tested and held to a standard by those who are in the
know. So, I'm not expecting any votes when it comes to real code issues.
- - - - - -
Case in point: The name game. We need a name. It has NOTHING to do with
code. We all have ideas and some 40+ ideas have been mentioned. I'd like to
rise to the challenge of working as a "community-clerk" and devise a
framework that helps to pick the best and most widly supported name. I'm
sure that a 1-vote-majority rules with entitled partners isn't going to
always lead to our best outcomes. Nor can we hope to come to a consensus
with the name(s) given our global, internet based discussions. I think it is
quite possible that we might be able to all walk into a room in some city
and have face-to-face talks for a day and come up with a consensus -- but we
don't have that type of bandwidth at our disposal here and now. Given the
facts that we are not going to have a summit just to select a name -- we had
better have someone take the role of the voting organizer (community-clerk).
And, FWIW, a community-clerk's duties go way, way beyond the writing of a
cgi to make secure votes. It isn't only a technical challenge. And, the
technical part of it can be fixed with a little extra manual labor. I could
collect the early votes via off-line email to a voting POP email account.
Then I could bounce back the votes for confirmation to each person before
giving out the final outcome. Then, if someone spoofed you (the worst of all
crimes) -- you'd know it. Even a use of PGP keys for votes to make sure
you're you would be easy to do. A tally sheet (given less than 100 voters)
is easy to keep without fancy server scripts.
Here is my pitch: I'd like to assume the role of "community-clerk."
I want to see this venture proceed and make some real progress. However, I'm
not the one you want to handle the code. And, I'm mostly neutral on what
specific pathway gets taken. But, I'm more of an advocate for getting to the
heart of the matters, making the options clear, nudging things along. If
necessary, I'd propose a vote. Then those of you out there would make your
cases for your choices (politics) -- and I'd set up the rules, and determine
the outcome based upon the feedback.
In all the jobs of this organization, the role of community-clerk is more
like a sporting-official -- and NOT nearly as important as key writers, key
FAQ authors, and coders. I'd pave the way on sticky housekeeping issues only
-- and let well enough alone when things are perking along without major
de-railments. But, we can't be stuck on a slippery slope too long --
spinning our wheels so to speak. The votes have to navigate the community
around some of the fatal hurdles that in-decision and NON-decisions can
cause.
So.... now what? ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Do you think we could use at this time a FAQ-Clerk?
Who would like to be THE FAQ-Clerk? (We only need ONE person at this time,
IMHO.)
Do you think we could use at this time a Community-Clerk? (a.k.a. Voting
Czar)
If so, could you support me in this role? Or, who else wants to step up and
self-nominate to assume this role?
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Finally, don't sit on this one. I'm calling for some specific actions on
your part. Give the thumbs up or down to the list, please.
> ....So we need to vote .....
Yes, I guess you are right. From time to time we will need to hold a vote.
I'd rather NOT have any votes at any time, but I'm also hoping that the FAQs
write themselves. A vote, if called upon, would help to make the issue clear
and make the decision more understood. But the decisions of yesterday's
votes need to reside in OFFICIAL FAQs -- or else we'll be setting ourselves
up for more quacking in the future and a repeat of the same discussions. So,
a FAQ-clerk and a Community-Clerk are both being presented at the same time
as we NEED BOTH. And, it is a bit of balance of power too.
>I would then suggest a simple majority
>vote with each member getting 1 vote each.
I would MUCH rather have a percentage vote. A vote of 70% or more would be a
sign of a victory in that decision.
Staged polling where the worst ideas are abandoned in early rounds helps
too. That is more like elimination voting.
When multiple choices exist, and there are always many paths to choose among
-- hardly ever two -- then the voting gets to be way more involved. Case in
point: We'll have to agree on a blasted name. There must be 20-40 names
floated out there so far. Fine. But, the 1-vote for a simple "majority" does
not work in harder decisions. And, it does not work in getting everyone to
feel ownership / engagement / valued either.
Soapbox rant: The USA political system (2-party) is a huge joke. It isn't
anything to aspire to with this, new-age, free-source code endeavor. For
Americans, a 2-party system is what most of us know from our past history in
dealing with democratic ways (ha) -- but it stinks when and if we'd try to
leverage that same decision making mechanics to our venture here. We can't
go one-vote, majority rules, entitled voters only and hope to go anywhere
near the promised land with our venture's outcomes and our budding
community.
Sorry so long. I merged together a few different threads in my outbox.
