| From: | Adam J adamj@*********.html.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Open Source SR (Was Re: Introduction. :-)) |
| Date: | Sun, 07 Feb 1999 04:35:37 -0700 |
>[I'm cross posting this with the jackpoint.org mailing list as soon as I
>sign up :-)]
Thanks :-)
>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.
I assure you I won't dissapear. And if I do, it will be wholly planned and
orchestrated, so I'll leave somebody with the virtual keys. :)
>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.
I think that was a big problem with the whole ShadowCreations list before.
The project was cool, everyone jumped on it, and there was a huge lack of
planning. Things went fine until people needed guidance, and then it all
came tumbling down.
>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.
Doubtful. I don't like the idea of using peoples articles without expressed
permission, and most of the stuff on the Archive that's actually hosted on
the Archive is so old it needs updating to the new edition, or it's not so
useful.
Plus, quality is a big factor. The Archive has some really great stuff, and
some really great stinkers.
>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.
I covered this in my last message, and my feelings haven't changed in 5
minutes :) If two people want to write a similar article, I suggest they
either team up, decide which one could best write the article, or both of
them write it and people vote on which one is best (Or throw them both in
if we need a bigger page count<g>)
>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 like this. The best stuff makes it into the final product, and the things
that either didn't fit, were similar to other articles, or had dubious
qualities were put online too, but not as part of the final product.
>I think 1b is the way to go, despite the fact that I'm a discordian at
>heart. :-)
Hail Eris! :)
> Deadlines should be strictly enforced. Its the only way to get people to
>finish something by a certain time.
This is the big problem with net projects -- deadlines slide, often
drastically. And because people Expect deadlines to slide, they don't worry
about it.
>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'.
I can understand previous committments, I can understand sudden lifestyle
changes -- heck, I nearly dropped off the face of the earth when I started
working 12 hour days, and even now, 3 weeks after being laid off, I'm still
not back into the swing of things, really.
>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.
I would hope so. One thing I would think is maybe votes from people who
submitted an item are weighed more heavily than those that didn't.
I probably should have waited until sunday night to start this thread, so
it would have gotten more attention, because everyone is away for the
weekend :/
-Adam
--
< http://shadowrun.html.com/tss / adamj@*********.html.com >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / TSA Co-Admin / ICQ# 2350330 >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
< ShadowFAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/shadowfaq >
< "She pretty much walks around perpetually pissed at Mick." >
< - Kevin Kelly, on professional wrestler Mick Foleys wife Colleen >
