Writing a collaborative book on FZ is, in my opinion, close to impossible. It's my experience that each and every FZ fan has his/her own reason(s) for appreciating the man and the music, and more often than not, they differ greatly.
Shouldn't we be discussing the structure a bit more before adding tons & tons of info?
I see many words bouncing around: structure, content, file system, database, book, encyclopaedia, ... I guess we'll have to agree on what exactly all this means... If we want to go after a shared goal, we must agree on one, ... and we need a shared language...
I think we need a more structured approach, because we are discussing a number of different things simultaneously… I see many Matryoshkas – you know, these Russian wooden (nesting) dolls – opening, and successively smaller ones pop-up (please, don’t give us a Matryoshka vs. Babooshka discussion). Before we know it, we won’t be able to see the forest for the trees (I’m not really convinced that this is correct English/American – but you will get the point I guess/hope)…
emdebe @ the Wiki: (
http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Zappa_Wiki_Jawaka_talk:Community_Portal): The thing is, we should have taken some time upfront to discuss things like, say "naming conventions" (firstname lastname vs lastname firstname), "target audience" ("anonymous visitor" vs "FZ fan"), and "Does Humor Belong In The Wiki"... Now these things tend to go unresolved... and it seems that only one person takes the decisions (whether we like them or not)...
Here's an interesting read (IMHO) about "Roles & Responsibilities"...
http://wikka.jsnx.com/WikiRoles... I'm NOT saying we need to go this deep... It's just FYI... I have been playing with the idea of a 3-level "membership", but I'm not exactly sure where this is going... Maybe somebody else can chew on it for a while... The 3-level "membership" I was considering: - The Founding Fathers of Invention: those who started it all, and those who have the right to vote on issues. - The Xs (here's a need for a cool name - Cucumber? Iron Sausage?...): those who have been long term or valuable contributors to the project; they may obtain the right to vote on issues. - Contributors (Radish? Pumpkin?...): without the right to vote on issues. This could lead to the following text:
The roles and responsibilities that people can assume in the project are based on merit. Everybody can help no matter what their role. Those who have been long term or valuable contributors to the project obtain the right to vote on issues. All contributors are encouraged to participate in decisions, but the decision itself is made by those that have X status in the project. In other words, the project is a "Minimum Threshold Meritocracy". Contributors who give frequent and valuable, er, contributions to the project can have their status promoted to that of an X. An X gains voting rights allowing them to affect the future of the project. In order for a contributor to become an X, another contributor can nominate that contributor or the contributor can ask for it. Once a contributor is nominated, all of the contributors for the project will vote. If there are at least 5 positive votes and no negative votes, the contributor is converted into an X. Just a thought... and I’m not sure that it is an original one…
Kill Ugly Radio Forums
Poll
Author
Logged
