[Textop-en-phil] Skypecast #2: some governance questions

[Larry Sanger]

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