CZ Talk:Editorial Council/Pre-2010 Election: Difference between revisions
imported>Thomas E Kelly No edit summary |
imported>Catherine Woodgold (Comments on Editorial Council Resolution 0001) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Recruitment for what? the editorial council? I didn't realize you were looking for volunteers. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (CDT) | :Recruitment for what? the editorial council? I didn't realize you were looking for volunteers. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Edit, added Editors. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 20:38, 20 April 2007 (CDT) | ::Edit, added Editors. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 20:38, 20 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Comments on Editorial Council Resolution 0001 == | |||
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place (or wrong time) for my comments. This is the third time I've looked at this resolution and I still can't figure out where and when my comments are welcome. | |||
My main comment: Don't restrict debate so much! There can be good reason to terminate debate at some time in order to finalize a decision. But I see no good reason to prevent debate before a specified date. 72 hours is too short. It disenfranchises, for example, people who only have time to do Citizendium on the weekend. It disenfranchises people who concentrate on writing articles for several days at a time rather than constantly checking (deep in the hierarchy of pages accessible from the main page) to see what's going on in Citizendium. | |||
First we have a too-short approval process that doesn't leave time for many corrections to be noticed, pointed out and approved by editors before the article is approved. Now the same thing is proposed to be done with finalizing of fundamental policies. | |||
In a real-life parliament, debate is restricted to certain times because only one person can talk at a time. There is no need to do that for wiki parliaments. | |||
Besides allowing more time for debate, I suggest making the instructions clearer so that people know whether (a) ordinary Citizendium members or (b) Editorial council members are welcome to give comments and where and when to give them. Clear instructions ilke "You (ordinary Citizendium member) will be able to comment on this here starting at (date, time)" -- although, as I said above, I see no reason for such a restriction, and think it should just say "You (ordinary Citizendium member) are welcome to comment here now and until (date,time)". Similar clear instructions should be given for editorial council members. For example, Larry Sanger put a position statement but it is not at all clear who else is allowed to put one up, or when, or why he was free to write a long statement but wasn't free to write a long statement and who else that applies to. | |||
I also think the debate should be at least a week long to allow people who have time on weekends to participate. Also, it would be good to have an easier way to find this debate starting at the main page. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:25, 14 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:25, 14 May 2007
Recruiting
So what's the plan for recruiting Editors? CZ:Recruitment_Letter? CZ_Talk:Recruitment_Letter? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:34, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
- Recruitment for what? the editorial council? I didn't realize you were looking for volunteers. Greg Woodhouse 19:42, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
- Edit, added Editors. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:38, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Comments on Editorial Council Resolution 0001
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place (or wrong time) for my comments. This is the third time I've looked at this resolution and I still can't figure out where and when my comments are welcome.
My main comment: Don't restrict debate so much! There can be good reason to terminate debate at some time in order to finalize a decision. But I see no good reason to prevent debate before a specified date. 72 hours is too short. It disenfranchises, for example, people who only have time to do Citizendium on the weekend. It disenfranchises people who concentrate on writing articles for several days at a time rather than constantly checking (deep in the hierarchy of pages accessible from the main page) to see what's going on in Citizendium.
First we have a too-short approval process that doesn't leave time for many corrections to be noticed, pointed out and approved by editors before the article is approved. Now the same thing is proposed to be done with finalizing of fundamental policies.
In a real-life parliament, debate is restricted to certain times because only one person can talk at a time. There is no need to do that for wiki parliaments.
Besides allowing more time for debate, I suggest making the instructions clearer so that people know whether (a) ordinary Citizendium members or (b) Editorial council members are welcome to give comments and where and when to give them. Clear instructions ilke "You (ordinary Citizendium member) will be able to comment on this here starting at (date, time)" -- although, as I said above, I see no reason for such a restriction, and think it should just say "You (ordinary Citizendium member) are welcome to comment here now and until (date,time)". Similar clear instructions should be given for editorial council members. For example, Larry Sanger put a position statement but it is not at all clear who else is allowed to put one up, or when, or why he was free to write a long statement but wasn't free to write a long statement and who else that applies to.
I also think the debate should be at least a week long to allow people who have time on weekends to participate. Also, it would be good to have an easier way to find this debate starting at the main page. --Catherine Woodgold 07:25, 14 May 2007 (CDT)