Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I suggest a steering committe, with inital membership open to all contributors who volunteer, making decisions by formal consenus. (I don't see the need for an editorial board, but I agree that that would be up to the steering committee.) Possibly something legal needs to be said about ownership of the domain name. In addition to the Café, Lab, and Forum, we may also need an IRC channel (or something like that) for scheduled discussions.
Also, I don't think that anything this momentous, if we actually intend it to exercise control over other contributors, should be decided only on the Forum. Most people don't read the Forum —unfortunately (not even John, David, and Jacques, I think). Not that I mind talking here, but I don't expect it to lead to anything more than a coherent proposal from four people to be publicised on the Café and Lab.
Toby wrote:
I suggest a steering committe, with inital membership open to all contributors who volunteer, making decisions by formal consenus.
Sounds good to me.
In addition to the Café, Lab, and Forum, we may also need an IRC channel (or something like that) for scheduled discussions.
I think Andrew has already created a separate part "steering committe" of the nForum which was supposed to be used for such committee discussion.
I'd rather not create yet another channel, for general reasons. My feeling is that three already is more than enough.
Andrew is really the driving force behind this steering committee idea. Somewhat unfortunately, right now he is on a vacation with only sparse internet access.
Most people don't read the Forum
Yes, I know. But on the other hand we did seem to agree that organizational issues, as opposed to scientific content, should be discussed here. Let's see if anyone drops by here from over at the blog. If not, I'll post a more visible announcement there.
<div>
My knee-jerk reaction to this proposal is not very positive.<br/><br/><blockquote><br/><br/>Andrew Stacey suggested that more people might feel like contributing to the nLab if it were more transparent who is “in charge of it”, so that it be clearer what may happen to the material one contributes in the long run. Together we decided to take some action to improve on this siuation. I’ll post a link soon.<br/><br/></blockquote><br/><br/>I am quite sure that anyone's reluctance to participate has nothing at all to do with a lack of knowledge of "who is in charge". If it is, should we care? One reason I participate is because I don't think anyone is in charge. If we introduce a "who is in charge", we automatically introduce a hierarchy. I REALLY DO NOT LIKE HIERARCHIES. I would probably stop contributing altogether if I felt I was a second-class contributor. Everyone who contributes anything should feel like they are part of an organic process. The beauty of these efforts is that structure evolves organically and is not imposed from some top down structure. I think we have a good thing going that has demonstrated its ability to scale. <br/><br/>I also don't think we should be discouraged by the fact that we do not have more contributors. The n-Lab is growing quite nicely in my opinion.<br/><br/>What is needed and I don't think anyone would argue is a group of people who are clearly designated as "Site Administrators". These people are in charge of technical aspects of keeping the n-Community functioning. If a technical issue arises, contributors should know who they can contact to get it resolved. In my opinion, if anything, poor server performance of the n-Lab is the largest deterrent for broader participation. It is extremely frustrating when you click "Edit" and have to wait several minutes for the edit box to appear, if it does.<br/><br/>Regarding an Editorial Board...<br/><br/>We are all members of the Editorial Board. I don't think we've reached a point where moderation is needed. If we get to that point, we can deal with it then.<br/><br/>PS: The fact that "Credit" and "Ownership" has even arisen as an issue somewhat saddens me. It marks a turning point that can eventually lead to a disappointing end to the entire effort. Did Bourbaki worry about "Credit" and "Ownership"? Those who are concerned about ownership are free not to participate. We should be ok with that. Principles are important.
</div>
a group of people who are clearly designated as "Site Administrators".
Yes, I think that is what was intended.
if anything, poor server performance of the n-Lab is the largest deterrent for broader participation. It is extremely frustrating when you click "Edit" and have to wait several minutes for the edit box to appear, if it does.
Yes, I fully agree. I need to start looking for a different hosting company.
Yeah, I don't know. Is "site administrators" better than "steering committee"?
Well, ‘site administrators’ and ‘steering committee’ seem very different to me. We already have site administrators: those with the password to the wiki, those in contact with Jacques about bugs, those with the password to the server. (I'm all three, but I think that I've been pretty benign.)
I'm also quite sympathetic to Eric's view that none of this is needed; that is partly why I suggested organising the steering committee as I did. (Formal consensus was developed by anarchists to avoid hierarchy and coercion but still get things done. That leaves the hierarchy of steering committe member vs everyone else, hence open membership.) I would also be happy with doing nothing.
But Urs's initial post is right that decisions can sometimes get made without a formal structure. If a decision-making structure is liable to develop, then it can be a good idea to develop a better one first. Despite all of its talk about ‘consensus’, Wikipedia would be very different now (and, I think, better, certainly more open) if it had adopted a formal consensus model early on. Mostly, I just don't want Urs and Andrew to form a decision-making structure without the rest of us. (^_^)
Regarding an IRC channel, the purpose would be if the steering committee wanted to hold meetings; the channel would be empty most of the time. Chat works better than a forum for real-time communication, or so they say (I never really got into IRC myself), and anything that makes official decisions should have an official record. But a new discussion thread on the forum for each meeting would probably also work.
Finally, since I'm the only one who said the word ‘ownership’ on this thread, I stress that I meant the narrowly legal question of who owns the domain name. (Right now, that's Urs. But it could be some committee, in the form of an unincorporated association.)
As you can see, Eric, from the ‘Moderator of the n-Forum’ subheading that I've got, Andrew gave me (as yet unused by either of us) spam-quashing powers on the Forum while he's away. So I could just delete the ‘Member of the Steering Committee for the n-Lab’ subheading.
Anyway, it doesn't mean anything until we recognise it, which I don't as yet.
Mostly, I just don't want Urs and Andrew to form a decision-making structure without the rest of us
Right, me neither. That's why this is being posted here.
I realize that the announcement is taken in a way that was not intended.
It seems therefore worhwhile to amplify that, actually, myself I'd be happy not to be on any steering committee, as all extra administrative duties just keep me from doing the work that I am genuinely interested in.
Maybe I am not even a good proponent of the entire idea. Andrew did convince me that it would be useful and at some point even necessary, but now I feel I'd rather wait for him to come online to make the point better than I can (given that actually I am absorbed with editing abelian sheaf cohomolohy, Dold-Kan correspondence and Moore complex, which is what I really care about :-)).
So, generally, everybody here should relax, nobody wants to make the nLab a totalitarian system. All we are doing is looking for ways to trick you all into doing extra work for the benefit of the nLab
OK, I'll wait for Andrew.
<div>
Hi Toby,<br/><br/>For the record, I think your views are very sensible. It seems that you've put more thought into these issues than any of us. I agree with your suggestion about "ownership". There is another use of the word "ownership" that gets tossed around in conversations like this though. That is, "ownership of content". When I wrote "'Credit' and 'Ownership'", I was referring to the latter sense. No one owns content on the n-Lab except n-Lab. If someone doesn't like that, they can feel free not to participate. That should be made clear to contributors. If you want ownership of content, you can create your own "wiki web".<br/><br/>I have very little experience with Moderators at Wikipedia, but what experience I have had has been ugly. I think I have only made one or two contributions to Wikipedia and both times my contribution was reversed by a Moderator. I gave up and now I do not even try. I am less opposed to a Steering Committee than I am to a formal Editorial Board.<br/><br/>Isn't there a way to have formal consensus without a Steering Committee though? I thought that is basically what we've been doing. If anything, I think we could put some thought into formalizing "formal consensus" and make the process clear and open to anyone to participate. In this way, I don't see a need for any unattractive (to me anyway) formal titles.<br/><br/>My suggestion:<br/><ul><br/><li>Clearly identified "Site Administrators" with contact information and clearly defined ways of communicating technical problems</li><br/><li>Clarified process of "formal consensus" for decisions about the n-Lab that is open to everyone who wants to participate (preferably without a title of "Steering Committee")</li><br/></ul>
</div>
What we've been doing so far certainly isn't formal consensus. (See the link; it really is something formal.) The purpose of making it formal is to make it clear and open; nobody can come along and say ‘But I thought that we decided such and such!’ unless there's a record of it … and you'll know ahead of time how such records might be produced. What we've been doing is basically what Wikipedia did when it began and still largely pretended to do when I joined 7 years ago; now nobody pretends that big decisions there are made by consensus.
But you're right that a steering committee is antithetical to this idea; you'll find nothing about steering committees at the link. But you will find stuff about meetings, and that's the difficulty: how do we get everybody that's interested in the decision together at once to discuss it and resolve concerns? One possibility is to have people interested in that sort of thing sign up to join a steering committee, and let that committee have meetings … but I don't suppose that that's the possibility that I'd have thought of if Urs hadn't suggested such a committee already.
<div>
<blockquote><br/><br/>All we are doing is looking for ways to trick you all into doing extra work for the benefit of the nLab<br/><br/></blockquote><br/><br/>I don't think we should worry about this. "If you build it, they will come." I think you are already doing a fantastic job getting people interested just by being a role model. Your note to Bruce about it making life easier was great. <br/><br/>As I type this, there are 1476 pages. That is fantastic! The value increases the more content that goes up. You are already attracting some heavy weights.<br/><br/>It's not broken. Don't worry. Just keep doing what you are doing and things will work themselves out.
</div>
My most humble apologies for going on holiday! I shall do my best never to do so again ...
Mind you, it's meant that rather than answering things one by one I can answer it all in one go. Except that I don't have to as actually most of my points have been made in what all of you say. Let me gather things together in no particular order.
Plus, please get rid of the obnoxious "Member of the Steering Committee for the n-Lab" ;P
Apologies for that. I didn't realise that it would be so "in your face". Urs' designation was an experiment to see if a "closed" area of the forum was possible in case it was needed. Toby's is because I'm officially on holiday so someone needs to keep an eye on you lot. It's probably a CSS thing that makes it so irritating! If we need different roles on this forum then I'll tweak the CSS to make it less annoying.
Mostly, I just don't want Urs and Andrew to form a decision-making structure without the rest of us. (^_^)
I could read this in two ways. Firstly, it could refer to the fact that I started discussing this privately with Urs. Let me put everyone's minds at rest over that: I wasn't trying to start a coup, I wanted to give Urs the opportunity to kill the idea in its infancy if he thought it was a bad 'un. Once it became clear that he was open to the possibility, it was time to shift the discussion here, as we have done.
The second way of reading it is more in line with this discussion. This is absolutely what I'm talking about by forming a steering committee. Without a formal structure in place, decisions can get made all over the place and by all different people. Some in private, some in public. Without a formal system in place for making decisions, anything might happen and we'd never know quite what was going on. With something like a steering committee, if someone wants to make a suggestion then it's clear what they do and who has responsibility for making the final decision.
What is needed and I don't think anyone would argue is a group of people who are clearly designated as "Site Administrators".
Well, ‘site administrators’ and ‘steering committee’ seem very different to me. We already have site administrators:
My original proposal was just the steering committee, not the editorial board. This is sort of what I mean, except that they would have a slightly wider remit than just technical oversight. There are lots of things that need to be done to keep the n-lab running that are a little more than technical details, but aren't as far as editorial control. In fact, Eric brings up one or two in his posts (discussed in a minute). Later, Toby comments on "transparency". The current system of "site administrators" is almost the complete opposite. Who has site passwords? Those are the people with complete control over all the content not just on the n-lab but on the private labs as well! Those with private labs, are you happy with who has access to your stuff? Do you even know who they are? Bruce recently changed the font system, that's a fairly minor change and easy to put right, but someone with the master password can do much worse than that. And even if you trust those people, do you trust their sysadmins? Because they probably have access to the master password as well.
No one owns content on the n-Lab except n-Lab.
Excuse me? Who decided this? Where is this written down? Is this in the "terms of service" of the n-lab? So if I create a libelous page, is the n-lab liable for it? In which case, who, exactly, is underwriting the n-lab? Who will have to pay the costs when someone sues for libel? I suspect that at the moment, Urs is actually in a fairly shakey legal position so it's certainly in his interests to get things like this sorted out. But this sort of thing is fundamental to the n-lab, not in a technical or mathematical way, but in a way that it defines the rules of the game.
At a minimum, maybe we should consider some kind of open source licensing to eliminate the possibility that the n-Lab gets caught up in legal wrangling down the road?
This is the sort of thing that the steering committee would be there to sort out. And let me point out that there are many different models for the steering committee. It could be simply an advisory body, drawing up proposals which are then voted on by the whole userbase. Or it could have executive powers over some bits with others being open. It could have open discussions or closed discussions. It certainly ought to garner opinions from all and sundry as part of its decision process. I'm not talking about taking power away from everyone, but rather making it clear how the exercise of power is to be done.
We are all members of the Editorial Board. I don't think we've reached a point where moderation is needed. If we get to that point, we can deal with it then.
It's not broken. Don't worry. Just keep doing what you are doing and things will work themselves out.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. I would far rather have systems in place for resolving conflicts before they happen rather than try to come up with the rules as they are needed. If you invent rules at the time then they are needed then you are, in effect, having to judge the issue because your rules will favour one party or the other and the party ruled against will feel that the rules were drawn up just to provide (weak) justification for ruling against them. If the rules are in place beforehand then no-one can (justifiably) hold a grudge. Good rules are not there to limit freedom but to enable it. One of my favourite songs has the line: "Freedom without justice grows up into slavery". Okay, it's a bit stark for this project but it's in the same vein as the point I'm trying to make. It's also underlined by the contrast between MathWorld and GPL. Weinstein ran into problems because he didn't put in place the necessary structure to protect the freedom he wished to grant. The GNU people, however, didn't have those problems because they did put that structure in place. Structure isn't necessarily bad!
am quite sure that anyone's reluctance to participate has nothing at all to do with a lack of knowledge of "who is in charge". If it is, should we care? One reason I participate is because I don't think anyone is in charge. If we introduce a "who is in charge", we automatically introduce a hierarchy. I REALLY DO NOT LIKE HIERARCHIES. I would probably stop contributing altogether if I felt I was a second-class contributor.
I deliberately called it a "steering committee" to try to downplay the "in charge" nature of it (and as I've said, it needn't be totalitarian). The intention is not to create a hierarchy but to create a transparent system that can actually get things done. However, I would also argue that hierarchies exist anyway, whether you like them or not. The difference is that these hierarchies are informal and vary from person to person. At one point Toby says: "(not even John, David, and Jacques, I think)". Here is a hierarchy in Toby's mind. It's not actually the one that I see in place on the n-lab: Jacques is certainly not involved in the content of the 'lab, and is mainly interested because it's a showcase of Instiki. John and David do not seem that involved either, at least not nearly as much as, say, Toby and Mike. I would say that this hierarchy is one carried over from the cafe and thus not one that a complete newcomer to the 'lab would share. It may be right to involve these people, I don't want to comment on that now, but all the more reason to formalise it.
I suggest a steering committe, with inital membership open to all contributors who volunteer, making decisions by formal consenus.
I've not come across this idea of "formal consensus" before so I'll need to look at that. The details of how this is done are secondary, though they should be something that is workable.
"If you build it, they will come."
Again, I wish I shared your optimism. There are so many different projects out there that we need to explain and make it absolutely clear what the n-lab is about and what people are getting involved with, otherwise they won't come.
Now let me say a little as to why I suggested this. It was partially in reaction to some things. One was Bruce changing the font. This made me think that there are somethings that can be done that shouldn't be done. Changing the fonts is pretty minor, but it made me aware of the possibilities and I'm not sure I like that.
But it's also partially because I'm worried that we might wake up in a year's time and realise that the n-lab isn't anything like what it was intended to be but no-one's noticed where it went wrong. There are several goals on the front page which aren't clear how to properly realise and if no-one is thinking about this then it won't get done. Then we really will get superseded by some other project (please, not google wave). And that really would be a shame.
I would also like to address the issue of "ownership".
Eric wrote:
PS: The fact that "Credit" and "Ownership" has even arisen as an issue somewhat saddens me. It marks a turning point that can eventually lead to a disappointing end to the entire effort. Did Bourbaki worry about "Credit" and "Ownership"? Those who are concerned about ownership are free not to participate. We should be ok with that. Principles are important.
and later:
No one owns content on the n-Lab except n-Lab. If someone doesn't like that, they can feel free not to participate.
If that is the official view then I'm afraid I will have to withdraw from the project. Which again makes my point about making these things clear and transparent. If I'd known this from the start, I just wouldn't have gotten involved.
I'm a professional mathematician. I don't mean that in any sort of hierarchical sense. I mean that I get paid for doing mathematics. Whilst I may feel deep down that mathematics is fundamentally free and not owned, I still have some restrictions imposed on me by the fact that this is my job. Someone pays my salary (currently the good people of Norway) and every now and then someone wants to be sure that they are getting their money's worth. I have to fill in forms saying what I've done in the past year. I have to point to things and say, "That bit of mathematics, I did that.". One of the key differences between the n-lab and Wikipedia is that on the n-lab we allow original research. This is actually the bit that I'm most interested in, and I suspect that Urs is quite keen on this as well. I would quite like a system where I could just point to the n-lab and say, "I'm a contributor to this project" and have them assess the value of my contribution. However, that's not the current system (and I suspect it's a bit too complicated for most bean counters to implement). So I need to be able to publish my work. If the n-lab owns everything I do on it, then I'm not able to publish it in a journal (or at least, the legality of it gets a bit complicated).
For example, suppose I figure that the page on Frolicher spaces is at a publishable stage. At the moment, I'd probably propose publishing it under my name and have acknowledgements to Toby and Mike for "helpful conversations" (I hope I'm not assigning the credit incorrectly here, you two, we can argue that later). Other pages would be a little more tricky, but a system in place which was clear at sign-up would mean that anyone getting involved would know what to expect at the outcome.
I actually started a discussion on this aspect, and if you chase things back you'll see that it's concerned me all along, but no-one else has seemed interested. But getting this sort of thing sorted out is complicated, technical, probably boring to most people, important, and just right for a steering committee.
Right, I'm off for the second part of my holiday now ... back in about a week's time.
I don't blame you for going on holiday, Andrew, although it's bad timing that this discussion came up just as you'd left.
Mostly, I just don't want Urs and Andrew to form a decision-making structure without the rest of us. (^_^)
I could read this in two ways.
I meant it in the second way.
No one owns content on the n-Lab except n-Lab. If someone doesn't like that, they can feel free not to participate.
If that is the official view then I'm afraid I will have to withdraw from the project.
Of course, this hasn't been established. Everything that I write is (while technically owned by me in the sense that the world's governments have declared that I have copyright on it by default) free for all use. I think that this system is perfectly applicable even to professional research mathematicians (even though I am not one), since journals only need the right to publish one's work, not to prevent others from publishing it. I don't like copyleft (although it's certainly better than restrictive copyright), since there are many different copyleft licences for this sort of thing, and they are incompatible (and therefore not free by the GNU definition, even if GNU will not admit this).
Do we need a steering committee to decide this stuff? (I know Andrew's answer, so I'm more interested in Urs's and Eric's.)
At one point Toby says: "(not even John, David, and Jacques, I think)". Here is a hierarchy in Toby's mind.
Those are (together with Urs) the people who got the Lab started. It would be particularly rude to set up a structure that makes decisions and expect them to abide by those decisions without their agreement. I don't mean to suggest that they're in charge. On the contrary, I like the Lab better than the Café because John has already made clear to me the hierarchy there (for his posts, that is): he on top, everybody else below. As he would not even explain his criteria for deleting comments, I left the Café for a while and only came back as the Lab was starting.
In that case, it was particularly the lack of clarity that mattered. If Urs (or anybody else, but Urs is the one most plausibly able to try to pull rank like this, not that I think that he's likely to actually do it) started deleting entries (even employee, our one spam page so far), then I would be upset too. Like Eric, I don't like hierarchies, but clear rules for whatever hierarchies exist are even more important to me.
<div>
Edit: I posted this before seeing Tim's note.<br/><br/><blockquote><br/><br/>I would quite like a system where I could just point to the n-lab and say, "I'm a contributor to this project" and have them assess the value of my contribution. However, that's not the current system (and I suspect it's a bit too complicated for most bean counters to implement). So I need to be able to publish my work. If the n-lab owns everything I do on it, then I'm not able to publish it in a journal (or at least, the legality of it gets a bit complicated).<br/><br/></blockquote><br/><br/>I don't see anyway to make that possible unless maybe you create your own wiki web and control access to it. Then it would have your name clearly marked at the top. If I were you, I would look to Urs as an example. <br/><br/><a href="http://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/HomePage">Schreiber</a><br/><br/>His technical papers are quite distinct from what he puts on the n-Lab even if the idea germination occurred on the n-Lab. The n-Lab should be thought of as more of an "open" reference and not so much as a publication medium.<br/><br/>It sounds like we are in unchartered territory so it is good to see you outline your concerns.<br/><br/>I still stand by the idea<br/><br/><blockquote><br/><br/>No one owns content on the n-Lab except n-Lab. If someone doesn't like that, they can feel free not to participate.<br/><br/></blockquote><br/><br/>However, for your purposes, it seems a personal wiki web area would suffice nicely. If you do not want to contribute content to the main n-Lab area unless you can claim ownership of that content, then I would say that you should not contribute. However, I don't think the line needs to be drawn in the sand like that. You can contribute while relinquishing ownership, but then take ideas from the n-Lab and develop them further in your own private wiki web where you CAN claim ownership. Once you have a publication-ready document, you can simply refer back to the n-Lab as a bibliographic reference (maybe with a revision number). I really think your needs can be accommodated while maintaining the "no ownership" mantra on the main n-Lab grid.<br/><br/>I'm sure Urs is held to the same or similar scrutiny that you are in terms of "bean counters" and he seems to have found a system that works. In his case, it is even easier to justify his income because you can see all the blood sweat and tears required as he works through challenges out in the open. <br/><br/>At the end of the day, the n-Lab is a reference. In addition to being a reference for known standard material, it is a reference for material that is being developed in real time. In that sense, it is a place to do original research.<br/><br/>What I think might help you would be if Urs were to outline how he uses the n-Resources, i.e. n-Cafe, n-Lab, Private Wiki Web. Urs, how do you justify your use of the n-Cafe and the n-Lab? If his model is satisfactory to you, then great. If not, I can only say that no system can accommodate everyone 100%.
</div>
This discussion is getting a little off-topic. It's an important discussion to have, but without resolution of the original question then it is ultimately pointless. (That doesn't mean that it's pointless to discuss it now because I hope that soon we will have a resolution of the original question whereupon these discussions can be used as a starting point.)
What I want is to know is how are decisions made about the n-lab? I want this written down somewhere. Following this, I want a system whereby anyone can raise an issue that they think needs a decision.
My reasoning is that there are several issues that need to be sorted out before the n-lab gets much older. A few have been touched on above: ownership, licenses, and the like. I don't want these done in a haphazard manner. I don't want anyone left out who shouldn't be, just because they don't happen to read the right page at the right time or happen to be on holiday when some important matter is discussed (on the other hand, I would like some protection in the decision-making process from saboteurs).
Ultimately, I don't care what this system is. I suggested a steering committee but that was as much from ignorance of other methods than from any particular desire to have such a body. What I had hoped was that others would see the need for some sort of organisation and the discussion could quickly progress on to the exact form. This doesn't seem to have happened, but it maybe that the original proposal (of an actual steering committee) was too specific.
So let me get back to basics (as one of UKs most [fill in the blank] politicians put it).
Is there anyone who objects to there being a formal system in place for making decisions about the n-lab? If so, please spell out these objections.
If not, there still may be objections to certain types of system. What do you think that such a system must avoid?
I have no answer to (1); I'll leave that to Eric, maybe.
Here are some answers to (2):
Along with nlab and all of the personal webs, a meta web would be reasonable. That could have information about how decisions are made, policies that have been adopted, and so forth. We should be careful about whether it becomes yet another place for discussion, however.
Okay, I think we're getting somewhere.
We certainly will need somewhere to record the decisions, and to keep things like "terms of use" statements and other policy documents. Whilst I'm happy with them being drafted on a wiki, I worry a bit about having them editable by all and sundry for all time. After all, I could edit the terms of use to read whatever I want and then do what I like with the content of the n-lab. At some point, these documents will need to be made immutable (ish). At the moment, Instiki doesn't have the ability to lock, or take a snapshot of, a page so these would have to transfer out of the wiki part (of course to somewhere on the same host!).
I still think we need some way to recognise when a decision has been made! That is, what constitutes a quorum?
May be we need to actually work something through in practice and see how it goes. I know that I have very little experience of decision-making processes to know how to meet everyone's concerns without trying.
So here's a proposal. On the meta-wiki we create pages for the various documents that we think we need: terms of use, copyright, licence seems a reasonable start.
Here on the forum (please keep it here, I suspect that Toby's point about yet another place for discussions was to forestall another rant from me!) we start discussions about each.
On the main page of the n-lab, we announce all of this. This could be put on the n-cafe as well, but I would recommend that the n-cafe announcement be worded in such a way as to discourage comments there.
Let me say something about my insistence on the n-forum as the place for discussion. Ultimately, it comes down to RSS. Although there are a number of issues that need decisions soon, after these have been sorted out then there probably won't be so many and it'll only be every now and then that someone proposes something. Since the forum is now fully RSS'd, it's possible to have a suggestion thread which everyone interested can bookmark. Then they get notified when there are new things to discuss but don't get bothered otherwise.
Actually, there's an idea in there that occurred as I wrote it. We have a specific discussion on this forum which is for proposals to be decided upon. It's not for discussions on those proposals - they get a new thread here - but for the initial announcement itself.
And we could have another discussion dedicated to finalising decisions. That is, when a particular discussion seems to have reached a consensus and it's time for a final decision to be made then something is posted on the "decision discussion" announcing this.
My basic issue is to keep it simple using RSS so that there aren't pages spread about all over the place that everyone has to remember to check. (I'm actually toying with the idea of making a filter to convert 'latest changes' into RSS just so I don't have to keep manually checking it!)
I don't know much about feeds. The atom feed for the Lab does not do what you want?
Also, although Instiki can't lock individual pages, it can lock entire webs behind a password.
On comments, I partially disagree.
Currently, to keep track of things about the n-lab I have to keep an eye on several different websites. One of those, the n-cafe, is particularly irritating because comments about the n-lab can crop up in the comments of any post. This may come as a shock to others, but I don't read every comment on the cafe, nor do I intend to.
I also don't read every page on the n-lab. Nor do I intend to. The RSS feed from the n-lab is essentially the "recently revised" page, possibly with details. That's too much information to quickly scan through and find the relevant stuff.
On the other hand, the RSS feed on the forum tells me exactly who's commented and on what. I can trust that discussions haven't wandered too far from their original topic (err ...) and so get a quick overview of what's going on. By using feeds I can gather everything into one place which makes the system much more efficient for me.
So I know I sound a bit like a broken record, but it's because I want to make the whole n-setup as simple and easy to use as it can be. Part of that means not having to check half a dozen websites just to find out whether 'apples' ought to be 'pears'.
We still need an explicit procedure for actually making a decision. Suppose we come up with a putative terms of service, or license to publish, or copyright waiver/disclaimer or whatever. What do we do then?
Well, Eric would have us advertise it everywhere and then get everyone to agree to them. Whereas as you, Andrew, would have us develop a procedure for making decisions, advertise that everywhere and then get everyone to agree to that. (And then adopt the ToS through that procedure.) So you've both got the same hurdle, except that Andrew only has to jump it once.
And me? I don't want ToS (at least nothing that people have to agree to accept, although I could see agreeing to have read some disclaimer, perhaps against warranty and liability). But I do want a decision-making procedure.
Okay, so we've sort of had a dummy run of this over the latest changes proposal. There are a few lessons to learn from that.
We really need some central aims for the n-lab. It seems that Zoran and I have very different views of what the n-lab is for. I should be careful how I phrase this as it is very much my interpretation of what he wrote, but the impression I got was that the community side of the n-lab is very much secondary to its content. Thus a proposal that might help make it easier to find out what's going on in the community got such a negative response because it would, he felt, make it harder for him to add content. I don't want to get into an argument here about who is right (or even whether my interpretation is right, though I guess if I'm wrong someone should say so just to make it clear), but we need a yard-stick to measure against so that we know who is more in line with the project and thus who should back down gracefully.
I have a suspicion that most decisions will get made by the "usual suspects" no matter what system is proposed. Clear aims will help both them and the rest. If the usual suspects can show how each decision matches the central aims, then their decisions are defensible against the accusation of arbitrariness, and the rest can safely delegate the responsibility knowing that the central aims are being maintained.
I've had a glance through the formal consensus stuff and it looks good, but as well as an aim it also seems to need a well-defined group. It talks about rotating roles, and everyone getting to know how the system works, and stuff like that. This sits a bit uneasy with the "everyone can join in" concept (which I'm coming round to, by the way). I think that those who view themselves as being part of the "founding fathers" might want a way to ensure that the system doesn't get hijacked. Of course, clear aims would be one way!
Okay, so to implementation. Now that I'm more involved with tech support than I was when we started this discussion, I'm even more against the idea of announcing in loads of different places. This is the internet! I'm quite happy to set up a feed aggregator on the n-lab site so that those who know nothing about RSS can get the benefits without doing anything. But there should be an announcement place. It could be a section of this forum, it could be a page on the n-lab (in which case, I would include it in the homepage, done like a query box so that it scrolled). Probably both. (It would also be useful to have somewhere that I can post updates and so forth, like the fact that we now have lots more arrows than we used to).
But we left this hanging a bit, and paid the price when it came to 'latest changes'! Let's clean this up.
Regarding (3): That's why I suggested the steering committee, whose membership is increased (the same as any other decision would be made) by consensus of the current committee. That means a dictatorship of the steering committee, of course, which is why initial membership should be open to current contributors. (We could set some sort of cut-off, or even rule that some people can't join, but then I think that those people will have cause for complaint.) Thereafter, new people know that they are joining someone else's lab, and they know who is in charge; that is not much different from how it is for new people now, just clearer. (And it would be even clearer if we can also point them to the sign on the door, I agree.) And then they can join the steering committee if they fit in.
Okay, so let's take action. I'll start a thread where anyone can sign up for being part of the "primordial steering committee".
Hey, so which thread is that again?
<p>Ah, so that explains it. You (all?) didn't see it! What happened?</p>
<p>It's here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Vanilla/nForum/comments.php?DiscussionID=86&page=1#Item_2">primordial steering committee</a>.</p>
I suppose that the category "Steering Committee" was the obvious place for that discussion to go, but you forgot that that was a test category set up to see if the forum could have a private place where matters of deep import could be discussed away from prying eyes (such as those of our esteemed spammer). As you, Urs, were the only person allowed to use that category, the rest of us didn't even know that you had posted a discussion there!
I've now moved it to the general category so everyone should be able to see it. I've also moved a discussion that should have been in latest changes to where it should be, and also deleted the steering committee category until such time as it is needed, just to avoid further problems like this.
(I apologise for not noticing that you'd posted there, Urs. I only log on as admin when I'm doing some technical stuff, such as banning spammers, and don't tend to look at other stuff. When I'm logged on as me then I can't see in that Steering Committee category.)
Anyway, Urs' link should now work.
<div>
<blockquote>
but you forgot that that was a test category
</blockquote>
<p>Oh dear. Sorry.</p>
</div>
1 to 47 of 47