| From: | Stuart M. Willis hbiki@****.geocities.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Open Source SR (Was Re: Introduction. :-)) |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:44:00 +1100 |
sign up :-)]
Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM> doth spewth:
>[I spewth]
>>Furthermore, I hardly have the time on my plate to dedicated myself (and
>>just myself) to such a monumental task. I'd would've liked to have done it
>>as a more open source/open content style project, because they work very
>>well (witness Unix/Linux) - and while they require time to administrate,
>>they're not as all consuming as writing many words.
>
>And from what I've seen, don't work very well for RPG net.products.
I haven't contributed to any RPG net.products, but I have been involved
with (however indirectly) with a few similar kind of collective works:
dangermedia guild for one (which admittedly, does slightly from the time
problem); and various (musical) compilations. One of the latter died in the
arse, because the project leader dissapeared. However, the others have
succeeded quite easily.
Certainly it is somewhat easier when people can send you what they have
already writtem, rather than writing something specific before they send it
to you. However, it can be done if you quite ostensibly set a deadline for
the project and maintain it. If people take your assertion seriously
they'll either work towards the deadline or not even try.
>Witness the lack of action on the NERPS list (or rather, don't, because
>things over there are so slow you could subscribe and not see anything for
>a week.).
I've noticed.
> Writing via committee when you don't have a pressing need for
>what comes out doesn't seem to work well.
The thing, as much as Linux projects are 'committee' based, they are also
very open, as yoiu point out:
>An OS is somewhat different -- if Linus buys a new joystick for his
>computer and his copy of Linux doesn't recognize it, he's damned sure going
>to write a patch for it, and once he does, it's no hassle to make it
>available.
>If the NERPS project was writing about a similar topic that I was writing
>about at the moment (Which is GURPS: Pro Wrestling, in another program),
>then the NERPS project would benefit more because I would finish it for my
>own usage and contribute it. (Note that I'm using NERPS as an example
>because it's ATM the only list I'm subscribed to doing a work as a team,
>I'm not trying to pick on NERPS.)
Exactly. As far as I'm concerned the Shadowrun Archive is pretty much a
damned brilliant open content SR project.
Perhaps you could combine all the articles in net.books for offline
pursual? I'd be more than happy to do that.
>And I want to start and finish MORE -quality- resources for Gamemasters and
>Players devoted to the game. (ObNERPSComment: Not stuff for the game, stuff
>about the game, so it doesn't overlap)
Getting people to start projects is easy, getting them to finish them is
the hard part.
>So "ShadowCreations" will be starting up again really soon now. I've talked
>to Bull about it, and he's cool with letting me and another person take
>over the project.
>So now -- who has ideas for making a medium to large project about
>Shadowrun with multiple authors to work in a semi-organized and not Snail
>Slow manner? How should the project be planned? How should authors be
>assigned? Should deadlines be made and how strictly should they be enforced?
In regards to planning, I think some form of mailing list should be created
specifically for the project. Interested parties merely join the mailing
list. Planning starts there... fleshing out the details of what needs to be
done. The thing may halt there, though, as people tend to be undecisive and
things like this can never be resolved. In that case, a project leader
(likely you) merely should say 'This is what we are doing, comments can be
sent to me' (beign dictatorship is grand). The comments will then allow the
plan to be slightly altered on reconsideration of the facts. Beign
dictatoship is quicker than any kind of democratic process, but it sucks.
After that, there are a number of directions I think one can take:
1. The first one is a quite-organised-semi-oprganised. You assign specific
authors to a specific task, set a strict deadline, and wait for the final
products to drift in.
(a) You'd probably could make it first-come-first-serve with regards to who
gets to write what;
but a better system
(b) would undoubtedly be a 'tendering' process. People write a short
synopsis/application for their article, and submit it. Everyone one the
list pursues those applications, and everyone on the list is able to vote
for their favourite applications. You need some java code to do such, but
it shan't be hard.. I could probably borrow some from a friend of mine. :-)
Of course, only the most motivated/reliable will be able to write
applications by a set deadline - that way you have a kind of preliminary
culling process.
2. The other would be semi-organised verging on anarchy. No specific
authors are assigned to specific tasks, though I recommend a strict
deadline. You merely wait for finished articles to be sent in. From here
you have two choices:
a) Merely putting them all on line, in some kind of internally-organised
manner, for all to pursue. Yes, this would be somewhat similar to the
Shadowrun Archive, but be dedicated to articles for GM's/Players. Some
things would be covered many times, other things not covered at all. But
one would be offered many choices... which is a good thing. Certainly a
list of 'things we'd like to see written about' could be generated, with
the hope that it may inspire someone to write about a topic. However,
quality is not guaranteed. Which is probably not what you want.
b) Making them available to the list (either this one, or a list created
for the sole purpose of the creation of the net.book) only. The list is
then, like in 1, able to read and vote on those articles. The winning
articles are compiled into the net.book, and the rest are still available
for online pursual for the diehard. Of course, this is likely to annoy
people who put hours and hours in their article only to loose by a hair
margin.
I think 1b is the way to go, despite the fact that I'm a discordian at
heart. :-)
Deadlines should be strictly enforced. Its the only way to get people to
finish something by a certain time.
It is only right to give consideration to those who suddenly have
committments or whatnot that suddenly popup and they can't complete the
project by the deadline... but a deadline will scare off the ones who think
'I may be able to complete it, I may not'.
It's a long process, yes, but its the only way to ensure quality and
timeliness (long process does not mean slow). Voting shoudl be monitored,
but not mandatory. More people than articles will likely vote and, besides,
I believe in people enough to suspect people will vote for the better
application/proposal.
Of course people may become annoyed if they miss out on writing an
article, but it also puts mild pressure on the winning tenderers to
complete their article by the given time.
I think I am too tired. :-)
s.
---
"I can't help it," Michael said with discouragement. "The more I find out
about the practice of law, the more I'm surprised that it isn't illegal".
- Joseph Heller, Closing Time.
whinebox: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8905/
ICQ: 4340513
Dangermedia Guild Assassin: http://dangermedia.com
---
