Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

>>Michael D. Thomas said:
> * Cultural: Over the years, I've found that most any suggested
> augmentation of INW will face the criticism that it will break lots of
things that are good about INW and that, generally, changes to INW are
bad. I'm an optimist -- I think we could create a repository without
adversely affecting Triangle InterNetWorkers. The cultural debate will
come, so let's go ahead and start it.

I don't believe this will change INW.  The expansion of the site will only
augment and formalize a process that already occurs, namely the transfer
of knowledge from more experienced members to the less experienced or to
the public in general.  With Michael's communal-effort concept, I think
it's a win-win proposal; if you or someone else wants your expertise
posted as an article then it happens, and if you don't like the idea then
you don't have to play.


I think some rearrangement is needed of Michael's steps involved.  "Once
an email is promoted, it is now an article," should be something like,
"Once an email is promoted, it is now in the permissions stage."  The
process might be:
1) promotion of email/article (by the author or would-be editor)
2) acceptance or rejection by author (assumed "Yes" if author promoted it)
3) editing (by volunteers)
4) publishing to website

I think steps 1 and 4 should be automated.  The discussion list archives
already exist.  A "promote" link/button could be added to the page of each
read message (assuming the staff at ibiblio will accomodate this; assuming
it can be done with/around pipermail).  Upon clicking, the message or a
summary or a link back to the message would be remailed to the list with
an altered subject line ("[Promote]"), allowing the author and would-be
editors to respond on or off list.  If it is unobtrusive, then the
promotion could also be done directly from the original message on the
list, as in Michael's idea.  Then the editors do their thing.  Finally,
through an interface on the INW site, the finished article is submitted
for publication in the correct category of the directory.

I foresee a few problems.  It's possible that we'll end up seeing the same
"editorial board" over and over again.  That is not necessarily a bad
thing, but some people might object.  Also, should review be required? 
Meaning, should an author be allowed to publish to the directory without
peer review, or should editing be a required step?  We could perhaps allow
that, if no one chooses to edit the article, then it may automatically go
to publishing.

Wishful thinking:  Assuming this goes well and a sizeable directory
becomes established, then perhaps it, or the INW site as a whole, could be
(re)submitted to the ibiblio Collections Index.

-Alan

_________________________
>>Michael D. Thomas said:
> :::Solutions:::
>
> Here are basic requirements:
>
> * The permission scheme is very, very important! There are two ways to
think about permissions: opt-in and opt-out. I think that the author has
to opt-in on a per post/article basis. Beyond that you can have
> convenience mechanisms -- "I'll just opt-in for all posts so I don't
have to opt-in on a per article basis."
> * The work of selecting and editing content is distributed. I.e., I
don't think that there should be one editor. I think that anyone should be
able to act as an editor. Anyone should be able to read a post, say "hey,
this should be on the web site!" and start the process of getting it
there. Also, people can edit and promote their own posts.
> * There are three key steps: promoting, editing and publishing.
>    - Promoting means that an editor likes an email and would like to see
> it published. Once an email is promoted, it is now an article.
>    - Editing is the act of getting the article ready for publishing. -
Publishing is the final act of making the article available on the
> web site.
> * An editor should be able to promote and edit an email very easily.
They should be able to start the process by clicking on a link inside of
the email and then navigate a simple interface for the purpose of
editing.
> * An author who has had his email promoted should be able to easily give
(or decline) permission for the article to be published.
> * The system should support a way that authors can declare the title and
topics of their post. I envision that a lot of the content would be of the
"Hey, check out this link" variety. By using some really simple markup,
the authors of such "here's a link" messages could:
>    - Declare that they are submitting the post to the web site (i.e.,
> self-editing).
>    - Specify a title for their article. (The title could also be derived
> from the title of the web page that is pointed to.) For "here's a link"
messages the body of the article would be very brief. It would be most
like www.fark.com.
>    - Declare the topics for the article.
> I think that all of these goals could be achieved in a way that wouldn't
be overly obtrusive to those reading the emails from the list. In fact,
the added structure could even improve the readability of messages.
>
> Thoughts?