> Mark: #2. How about if we get volunteers and/or nominations and select a
> person to fill the role of FAQ-Clerk? This person will be the
> writer/keeper/editor for the official FAQs that are associated with this
> endeavor. It could be sorta like a secretary. The archives are great, but we
> need to make the discussions and then refine and boil down the outcomes in
> summary documents. The FAQ documents would be the visible "OUTCOMES" of these
> discussions, our legacy that is more of a welcome to new arrivals and reviews
> rather than the mailing list archives.
Adrian: Now the idea of a FAQ I like and I fully support a FAQ clerk. I
also think we need one person to tally votes etc, and this role would
probably extend to managing votes etc as Mark suggests.
> Mark: I think we need to build upon these FAQs to make serious progress.
Adrian: Yes, this is something that has been missing. The web site tried
to do this, but never worked exceptionally well. Perhaps a text-based FAQ
which is also on the web would work well.
> Mark: #3. How about then if we get volunteers and/or nominations so we can
> select a person to fill the role of COMMUNITY-Clerk? This is sorta like a
> "voting organizer" -- or a clerk's office that one might have in a
> city-council office. This person would be the housekeeping boss and rule on
> all decision making issues on HOW to put the decision making process into
> action. This person would be the one to call for a vote -- determine what
> should be in the vote -- the rules for the voting -- the collection of the
> votes -- etc.
Adrian: Yes, this would make sense.
> Mark: Then the decisions of said votes would be recrafted and put into a FAQ
> too.
Adrian: If all the failed decisions went into the FAQ it would quickly
become very unruly. Perhaps we could have a FAQ for the major points that
people keep bringing up, and "minutes" for everything that is voted on and
the results and things that are hotly debated - basically a summary of the
mailing list archives. This would probably require a different person to
the person managing the FAQ as the job will be quite big.
> Mark: As I see it, we don't need lots of votes. But, when we do, we need to
> have them done in a smooth fashion so that our delicate ideas and
> personalities can stay at ease. We can't turn people off with the votes -- or
> we'll have no community. In the real world, the FAQ will be able to ramble
> along growing by leaps and bounds just by input -- some small discussions --
> more input. Then from time to time -- we'll hit a sticking point. Enter the
> "community-clerk" -- to figure out how to resolve sticking points -- and avoid
> any choke points.
Adrian: I think we'll need quite a few votes, we aren't very good at making
final decision's without either a poll or a vote. We're just never sure we
all agree.
> Mark: Note, these are collaboration roles and have NOTHING to do with the
> keepers of the code. I'm sure we'll need a few "code-dictators" as well. I
> think that most of the code decisions are going to be obvious, refinements
> might come -- but they'll be tested and held to a standard by those who are in
> the know. So, I'm not expecting any votes when it comes to real code issues.
Adrian: Many votes will come from code issues - things involving syntax for
OpenTalk, trading speed for functionality etc, etc.
> Mark: And, FWIW, a community-clerk's duties go way, way beyond the writing of
> a cgi to make secure votes. It isn't only a technical challenge. And, the
> technical part of it can be fixed with a little extra manual labor. I could
> collect the early votes via off-line email to a voting POP email account. Then
> I could bounce back the votes for confirmation to each person before giving
> out the final outcome. Then, if someone spoofed you (the worst of all crimes)
> -- you'd know it. Even a use of PGP keys for votes to make sure you're you
> would be easy to do. A tally sheet (given less than 100 voters) is easy to
> keep without fancy server scripts.
Yes, but we need some system for taking votes, I had hoped that the voting
cgi would be a solution we could turn to, time and time again very reliably
without having changing email addresses for votes to be sent to when the
community-clerk changes and other such problems.
> Mark: Here is my pitch: I'd like to assume the role of "community-clerk."
> I want to see this venture proceed and make some real progress. However, I'm
> not the one you want to handle the code. And, I'm mostly neutral on what
> specific pathway gets taken. But, I'm more of an advocate for getting to the
> heart of the matters, making the options clear, nudging things along. If
> necessary, I'd propose a vote. Then those of you out there would make your
> cases for your choices (politics) -- and I'd set up the rules, and determine
> the outcome based upon the feedback.
Adrian: We want to set up a set of rules for voting that will stand for
every vote and this is one of the things that has been discussed and is
being discussed.
> Mark: Do you think we could use at this time a FAQ-Clerk?
> Who would like to be THE FAQ-Clerk? (We only need ONE person at this time,
> IMHO.)
Adrian: Yes, we need a FAQ clerk. I will do this if noone else wants to,
but I'm not sure that I am the best person for the job - my english can
sometimes be haphazard - and it's my native language...
> Mark: Do you think we could use at this time a Community-Clerk? (a.k.a.
> Voting Czar) If so, could you support me in this role? Or, who else wants to
> step up and self-nominate to assume this role?
Adrian: Unsure on this. We do need someone to tally votes at least, but I'm
not sure I'd like to see someone "in-charge" of voting as this makes our
group structure take on a pyramid form instead of the flat form that we
currently have.
> Mark: Finally, don't sit on this one. I'm calling for some specific actions on
> your part. Give the thumbs up or down to the list, please.
Adrian: Agreed.
> Mark: I would MUCH rather have a percentage vote. A vote of 70% or more would
> be a sign of a victory in that decision.
Adrian: I wouldn't disagree to this, it just seems a little complex. Still,
we are all intelligent people.
> Mark: Staged polling where the worst ideas are abandoned in early rounds helps
> too. That is more like elimination voting.
Adrian: Yes, but multiple rounds of voting would be a nuisance and
preferential voting isn't really what we want in this group, IMO.
Adrian Sutton
**************************************************************
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 3714 4649
We have nine children now � half boys and half girls.
-- Mark Twain.
**************************************************************
