[Textop] Next steps: pilot project kickoff and discussionschedule

[Larry Sanger]

I'm inclined to agree with both of these posts (below)--but in both cases
the question is what *details* of project governance can be articulated that
satisfies the requests.

Among the next steps (http://www.textop.org/first_steps.html):

* Set up textop-en-phil 
* Post draft rules and procedures for Collation Project pilot 
* Post call for participation to philosophers
* Convert work on Leviathan into wiki format 
* Draft Community Charter (at least issues to be covered)
* Plan scheduled discussions 
* Start scheduled discussions

--Larry

-----Original Message-----
> From: textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org
[mailto:textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On Behalf Of gblane
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:45 AM
> To: General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project
> Subject: Re: [Textop] Next steps: pilot project kickoff and
discussionschedule

> Larry, the aspect of the project I am most concerned about is the 
> possibility of "bottlenecks" being created during any approval process. 
> I am aware that we are not operating under the constrictions that governed

> Nupedia, but I would like to see something concrete dealing with the role 
> of editors and others involved with the actual text. GB
 
AND:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org 
> [mailto:textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On Behalf Of 
> Brendel Matyas
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:18 AM
> To: General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project
> Subject: Re: [Textop] Role-play-game
> 
> I see what is your problem. I have been already thinking on 
> this, I came up with the following ideas:
> 
> 1) Let the role be "judge" not "arbitrator". The judge is a 
> person (or comitee), who decides in disputed questions. He is 
> a third party, who must not be involved in the question. He 
> does not have to arbitrate. So judgement can be quick. The 
> role of the judge has to be separated from administrators and editors.
> 
> 2) In real world you would not go to the judge with every
> small question. Why? Because there are formal restrictions, 
> because there is a "filter" before you go to the judge, 
> ecause you are lazy, and finally, because it costs money. I 
> was thinking if we could earn with our work some virtual 
> money, which can be spent on fees of judgement.
> 
> This way we could ensure that respected collaborators can
> have a fair trial if there is a serious dispute, but obody 
> would spend money on silly questions jut to make quarell.