From larry.sanger at corp.manyone.net Thu Jun 1 15:32:18 2006 From: larry.sanger at corp.manyone.net (Larry Sanger) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:32:18 -0700 Subject: [Textop-avs-ann] Next steps: pilot project kickoff and discussion schedule Message-ID: <01da01c685cb$3dd0d7b0$7e02020a@D6WD1391> Dear Textop Advisory Committee members, Here are the next steps I propose to take with Textop. (1) Pilot project kickoff Today or tomorrow I'm going to revisit the pilot project wiki and plan: http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page You're welcome to contribute, of course. The focus now should be to make sure that the pilot project "game rules" are clear enough that people arriving on the scene will be able to figure out how to play. One main part of the project kickoff will be a call for participation, which I'll send to a half-dozen or dozen philosophy mailing lists, asking for philosophers both to lead and to participate in a Collation Project pilot. (2) Discussion schedule I'm going to try to create a discussion schedule, in which we will have a telecon, which is hopefully to be podcast (I'll consult with a couple podcasters I know), and during which we'll review some particular topic, or document, surrounding Textop. I'll announce topics only on the [Textop] mailing list. The first topic, I think, should be governance, since we've been talking about that on [Textop]. The result of each discussion will be a revised (or newly created) document. So the result of the governance discussion will be a *draft* community charter. I do not propose to consider any community charter official until it has been reviewed and commented on (and approved) by a significant portion of the Advisory Committee. --Larry From larry.sanger at corp.manyone.net Thu Jun 1 16:46:23 2006 From: larry.sanger at corp.manyone.net (Larry Sanger) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:46:23 -0700 Subject: [Textop-avs-ann] Please circulate Message-ID: <01dd01c685d5$97321d50$7e02020a@D6WD1391> All, I've drafted (below) a message that I hope you will forward to colleagues as well as relevant mailing lists you might be on--just by way of at least marginally increasing our numbers with good people. The lists might include departmental lists, disciplinary lists, info science lists, Internet publishing lists, etc., and Usenet newsgroups. NOTE: philosophers please contact me before posting to philosophy lists. Edit freely. ====== Hello! You've probably heard of a little encyclopedia project called Wikipedia. I conceived, started, and led the project in its seminal first year, and was probably more responsible than any person for crafting the set of policies that have made it the (qualified) success it is today. But I know Wikipedia has problems. The Wikipedia community's refusal to deal with those problems head-on is actually why I have distanced myself from the project. Well, I've had an idea for a reference project--for a brand new *kind* of reference--and I'd like to ask you to consider joining me in starting a better community. This *is* going to happen. I am more excited about it than I ever was about Nupedia or Wikipedia. This new project is actually a side-project of the Digital Universe (http://www.dufoundation.org). It's called the Text Outline Project or Textop (http://www.textop.org), and it is itself a set of projects, managed by a strong collaboration among a global group of scholars, with the aim of organizing the information contained in books, dictionaries, opinionated essays, and news articles--and perhaps other sources--into a single outline of human knowledge. It will be an "open meritocracy." Built by volunteers, the result will be free and noncommercial. Top-level summary: http://www.textop.org/textop_summary.html The Collation Project (http://www.textop.org/collation_summary.html), the flagship, will analyze various public domain works studied by scholars (e.g., Classics and history of philosophy) into approximately paragraph-sized chunks; summarize the chunks; and place these chunks into a single outline. Each node of the outline will not have more than, say, a half-dozen chunks, so the outline will be constantly expanding. This will provide a single reference point for comparing the detailed content of scholarly works from throughout history and eventually, it is to be hoped, more recent works as well. We have a really impressive Advisory Committee: http://www.textop.org/advisory_committee.html Also of interest: Proposed screenshot: http://www.textop.org/screenshot.html Project manifesto: http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html Example outline: http://www.textop.org/outline_help.html Letter: http://www.textop.org/letter.html Proposed software requirements: http://www.textop.org/reqs_v1.html What next? What can you do? Please join me and some really smart people on the Textop mailing list: http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop That's where it's all getting started; get the "digest" (all posts in one day) if you want all the mails for a day at once. We're starting up a pilot project on the project wiki: http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page We'll begin by "collating" some classic works of philosophy. Please do join us! Larry Sanger Director, Collaborative Projects, The Digital Universe Foundation Director, The Text Collation Project From larry.sanger at corp.manyone.net Thu Jun 1 17:10:39 2006 From: larry.sanger at corp.manyone.net (Larry Sanger) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:10:39 -0700 Subject: [Textop-avs-ann] Please circulate Message-ID: <01df01c685d8$fb3c21d0$7e02020a@D6WD1391> Edited version below, amends dig at Wikipedia (sorry for the multiple mails). ====== Hello! You've probably heard of a little encyclopedia project called Wikipedia. I conceived, started, and led the project in its seminal first year, and was probably more responsible than any person for crafting the set of policies that have made it the (qualified) success it is today. Well, I've had an idea for a reference project--for a brand new kind of reference--and I'd like to ask you to consider joining me in starting another community. This is going to happen. I am more excited about it than I ever was about Nupedia or Wikipedia. This new project is actually a side-project of the Digital Universe (http://www.dufoundation.org/). It's called the Text Outline Project or Textop (http://www.textop.org/), and it is itself a set of projects, managed by a strong collaboration among a global group of scholars, with the aim of organizing the information contained in books, dictionaries, opinionated essays, and news articles-and perhaps other sources-into a single outline of human knowledge. It will be an "open meritocracy." Built by volunteers, the result will be free and noncommercial. The Collation Project (http://www.textop.org/collation_summary.html), the flagship, will analyze various public domain works studied by scholars (e.g., Classics and history of philosophy) into approximately paragraph-sized chunks; summarize the chunks; and place these chunks into a single outline. Each node of the outline will not have more than, say, a half-dozen chunks, so the outline will be constantly expanding. This will provide a single reference point for comparing the detailed content of scholarly works from throughout history and eventually, it is to be hoped, more recent works as well. We have a really impressive Advisory Committee: http://www.textop.org/advisory_committee.html Also of interest: Top-level summary: http://www.textop.org/textop_summary.html Proposed screenshot: http://www.textop.org/screenshot.html Project manifesto: http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html Example outline: http://www.textop.org/outline_help.html Letter: http://www.textop.org/letter.html Proposed software requirements: http://www.textop.org/reqs_v1.html What next? What can you do? Please join me and some really smart people on the Textop mailing list: http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop That's where it's all getting started; get the "digest" if you want all the mails for a day at once. We're starting up a pilot project on the project wiki: http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page We'll begin by "collating" some classic works of philosophy. Please do join us! Larry Sanger Director, Collaborative Projects, The Digital Universe Foundation Director, The Text Collation Project From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Jun 20 13:09:06 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:09:06 -0700 Subject: [Textop-avs-ann] Proposed voice discussion time - RSVP soon Message-ID: <001001c694a5$6286bd70$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All (this was sent to all active Textop lists, not just the Advisory Committee), We definitely have a quorum of people interested in Textop telecons. Having thought more about it, and given the inevitable difficulty of reconciling many schedules for meetings, I think the best way forward is just to set a regular time and use turnout data to decide how often to meet. Personally I'd like to meet every week. What I propose TENTATIVELY is: Fridays 9 AM Pacific Noon Eastern 5 PM GMT PLEASE RSVP PRIVATELY SOON, SO I CAN ADJUST THE MEETING TIME IF NECESSARY. Please let me know what other days of the week might work for you, and if this has a *regular* conflict with your schedule. As far as start times are concerned, I don't think we should deviate much from the range of 8-10 AM (Pacific) for a start time, so that we can get Europeans involved. But on weekdays other than Friday, I think we could start as late as 11 AM Pacific (7 PM GMT). LET'S USE SKYPE: I know long distance (even international long distance) is cheap for most of us, but it probably isn't for everyone. So, to make it as inexpensive as possible for people to participate, and also to be able to record the proceedings for others to enjoy, I propose to do a "Skypecast," accessible via this page: https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1274 4 (I've linked this from the textop.org homepage.) EASY DOWNLOAD NECESSARY: To participate, you'll have to download (for free) Skype (http://www.skype.com/download/) and make a user account. If you've never used Skype before, don't worry--it's unusually user-friendly. If you don't have a headset or microphone (I have a headset that I find very convenient, $15 at an office supply store), you can always just listen through your computer speakers. AGENDA: for the first meeting, let's get acquainted, do a Q&A about the project as a whole for those who simply want to ask questions, and (if we have time) talk about governance. Let's aim for one hour (unless people are motivated to go longer). Next time we might divide our time between governance issues and the pilot project kickoff. Comments? Questions? Proposals? --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 28 16:45:11 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:45:11 -0700 Subject: [Textop-avs-ann] Skypecast #2: some governance questions Message-ID: <001c01c69b0c$e5277900$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, Let's have another "Skypecast" discussion, same time, access via this link: https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1430 4 Friday 9 AM PDT, 12 PM EDT, 4 PM GMT I propose that we talk about the following two governance questions (and feel free to start talking about these questions on the [textop] list). (1) What more generally ought to be the source and top-level flow of authority in the project? Who, and by what method, decides how the most responsible roles are filled? Here is my own vague thinking on these questions. Generally, I think there should be (as was said on [Textop] earlier by others) a separation of powers, and the "powers" in question will probably include: (a) an outline editor (see question (2) below), who acts as project director for the Collation Project; (b) other project directors; (c) subject/discipline editors (e.g., the Philosophy editor); (d) text editors and other editors (e.g., editor of our treatment of Hobbes' Leviathan, or the editor of the Debate Guide's treatment of Economics debates); (e) the rank and file. I'm toying with the view that project directors and subject editors should be chosen by partition from among text editors and other editors, while the latter are chosen based on merit by subject editors, with input as necessary by other subject editors. My own role in the future project will be unclear. This is by design: unlike certain other Internet projects I could name, I do not want Textop to be a cult of personality. Instead, by vesting genuine authority in participants, the (2) How should decisions be made with regard to the outline? How are disputes to be resolved? On this, I have been toying with two ideas: (1) final decisions are made by an outline editor, serving a one-year term, who is chosen by sortition from among (willing) text editors; and (2) the outline editor (and those advising him or her) must create, consult, refine a body of rules in making decisions about the shape of the outline. Previous "important" decisions are, as they are in law, enshrined in the rules. New outline editors are bound (generally but not strictly) to follow precedent. On such questions, see: === To be clear, we are not *settling* these questions in this discussion, and you should feel free to weigh in on these questions anytime. In terms of settling on project governance, ultimately the procedure I intend to follow is this: we will discuss and collaborate on a charter on the [textop] list and the wiki; then the charter will be put before the advisory committee, which will be invited to debate and revise and, ultimately, approve it. --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Jun 28 17:14:00 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:14:00 -0700 Subject: [Textop-avs-ann] Skypecast #2: some governance questions [revised] Message-ID: <001d01c69b10$ebd49f40$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> [I accidentally sent this before it was finished. Sorry! Here is the complete version.] All, Let's have another "Skypecast" discussion, same time, access via this link: https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=1430 4 Friday 9 AM PDT, 12 PM EDT, 4 PM GMT I propose that we talk about the following two governance questions (and feel free to start talking about these questions on the [textop] list). (1) What in general ought to be the source and top-level flow of authority in the project? Who, and by what method, decides how the most responsible roles are filled? Here are my own vague first thoughts on these questions. Generally, I think there should be (as was said on [Textop] earlier by others) a separation of powers, and the "powers" in question will probably include: (a) an outline editor (see question (2) below), who also acts as project director for the Collation Project; (b) other project directors (e.g., the director of the Debate Guide Project); (c) subject/discipline editors (e.g., the Philosophy editor); (d) text editors and other editors (e.g., editor of our treatment of Hobbes' Leviathan, or the editor of the Debate Guide's treatment of Economics debates); (e) the rank and file. (a)-(c) might, or might not, serve on a committee of project leaders; but perhaps that wouldn't be necessary. Finally, some grouping of all of these people serves as an appeal committee. I'm toying with the view that project directors, subject editors, and appeals committee members should be chosen by partition from among text editors and other editors, while the latter are chosen based on merit by subject editors, with input as necessary by other subject editors. The reason I am leaning toward *some* sort of partition (for all but text editors), rather than top-down appointment or bottom-up democratic election, is that I very very much want to avoid the sort of political problems that have plagued such projects as DMOZ and Wikipedia. Given the amount of influence a really successful Textop could have, I want to ensure that its management does not fall to people who do not have the best interests of the project, and humanity generally, at heart. Power, even power in Internet projects, does tend to corrupt, and it tends to attract people who want to use it for their own personal purposes or idiosyncratic ideologies rather than, as in this case, for the good of the project according to its own lights. Persons chosen by partition, who are surprised that they must lead (so to speak), will be more likely to serve out of a sense of duty than out of a sense that they can use the project to save the world, or make their mark, or whatever. Furthermore, a process of partition might reduce the unpleasant politicking and formation of cliques (or parties) that comes with elections. People might still have acrimonious debates, but they will be over policy, not over who should be in charge. My own role in the future project is unclear to me. Unlike certain other Internet projects I could name, I do not want Textop to be a cult of personality. Instead, by vesting genuine authority in participants, we thereby increase the motivation to take responsibility for some part of what, to succeed, must become a vast enterprise. I think I will ask you, however, to make me project director of the various subprojects as they get started: I want to make sure that they get off on the right foot. After that, I might claim a reduced or limited role; that's the only thing that is consistent with partition as a method of selection. Obviously, this has to be decided and articulated. (2) How should decisions be made with regard to the outline? How are disputes to be resolved? On this, I have been toying with two ideas: (1) final decisions are made by an outline editor, serving a one-year term, who is chosen by sortition from among (willing) text editors; and (2) the outline editor (and those advising him or her) must create, consult, and refine a body of rules in making decisions about the shape of the outline. Previous "important" decisions are, as they are in law, to be enshrined in the rules. New outline editors are then bound (generally but not strictly) to follow precedent. On such questions, see: http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/6/22/22936/7559 === To be clear, we are not *settling* these questions in this discussion, and you should feel free to weigh in on these questions anytime. In terms of settling on project governance, ultimately the procedure I intend to follow is this: we will discuss and collaborate on a charter on the [textop] list and the wiki; then the charter will be put before the advisory committee, which will be invited to debate and revise and, ultimately, approve it. --Larry