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

[Larry Sanger]

[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