| From: | Stuart M. Willis hbiki@****.geocities.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Open Source SR (Was Re: Introduction. :-)) |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:24:29 +1100 |
>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. :)
That's if you want it *that* heirarchial. In the case of a musical
compilation it needs a project leader, cause someone needs to hold the
physical DATs and CDs and the like.
This project [Casting Shadows - which I like as a title, Shadowcreations,
ReFrag, or whatever we want to call it] will require a project leader to
inspire the masses and keep them in line fersure. However, if well planned,
the project should be able to survive the PL depature, unexpected or not.
In other words, I think there needs to be FTP space which open to all
project members. You can work on editing material offline, on your hard
drive, but if something goes bad [maybe your hard-drive] there are backups
which can be utilised.
I should hopefully be getting my hands on a 2gig backup DAT drive [for
free], maybe even a 10 gig one, so I can happily back up stuff too [on top
of the FTP site] - but the FTP site must be as up-to-date as possible.
As any runner should know, contigency plans are everything.
>>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.
Which is why you need team leaders. People charismatic enough to inspire
the troops, and kick their arse when necessary.
Committees suck and all that, but maybe you need some kind of informal
'executive' planners for this? Overseers, if you will.
>>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.
[hits.head] That one is pretty obvious.
>Plus, quality is a big factor. The Archive has some really great stuff, and
>some really great stinkers.
Perhaps a 'Best Of' compilation then? Only including articles where you've
been granted permission. [shrug]
But it is not that important.
>>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.
After some consideration, I realise this is probably the way to go.
Why? Because you need to be able to enforce a deadline. With this method
only articles received by the deadline will be included in the final vote.
You won't have to wait until specific people have written their articles.
That way you can be strict with the deadline, and people will not exploit
yo [generic]. In terms of organisation it is a lot easier too.
Certainly what needs to be written needs to be worked out before hand, even
if just in general terms.
As for putting up the failed-candidates, I think that the html version
[assuming one is created] of the net.book (if not all versions) should
include links to the other articles... either as an appendix to the entire
book, or [which i prefer] at the end of every chapter include a link to the
'other articles' that were in the running for said chapter. That way people
are made quite aware the existence of the articles, and contributors who
didn't get in the final book are still kept relatively happy.
>Hail Eris! :)
Heil Aris! :)
[hmm, i wonder what storm that created?]
>> 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.
Exactly, thats why I think 2b is the best option now. You simply make
people aware that there is no way in hell that the deadline will slide.
>>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.
I think we can all sympathise with that. :-)
This 'personal consideration' is the one thing lacking from 2b. [sigh]
>>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'm not so sure about this... but thats probably more a personal thing that
anything else. But I suppose if you want to encourage people to submit
articles, then this is the way to head... that, and it gives greater
control to those directly contributing to the project. Perhaps only by a
ratio of 2:1 or something. :-)
I think you need to use a preferential system, cause its better. :-)
hmm.
care,
s.
---
"Wait a sec," Case said. "Are you sentient, or not?"
"Well, if feels like I am, kid..."
- William Gibson, Neuromancer.
hi tech. no life.
egoshrine: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8905/
ICQ: 4340513
Dangermedia Guild Assassin: http://dangermedia.com
---
