[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ian glendinning]

OK, David H, Horse, Ant, DMB, Arlo, Gav, Craig, Mark, Dan ... and
anyone else ...

ANT / DMB, I'm not going to address your "crankier" rhetoric directly
here, they are about personal motivations and qualifications ... we
can discuss further if you see issues there. I'll address the points
here. I'd be pleased if you could too.

Horse ... spot on ... As I said, status quo. You can volunteer to edit
/ moderate anything you like. But the role I saw as "status quo" is
the one you describe. ie "Moderation" of social issues, but not
"Editorial Control" of MoQ content (at least no more than anyone
else). As the publisher of MoQ.org web-pages you do indeed have final
editorial control in practice, but in my experience you have never
abused that position ... which is why we all like you (and if you ever
need any help, just ask).

Gav, for this reason, simply agreeing to have Horse continue in this
role doesn't I believe address the editorial issue. (I have no wish to
make this any more complex than necessary - I can assure you -
fortunately this debate is mostly constructive on that score.)

Craig, Yes sorry ... I started a new thread to clarify the additional
point I was making (about the editorial issue), but this is indeed
simply re-stating the SAME proposal as Gav.

Ant - academia / qualifications / quality ? I think there is a
separate thread going on these with Dan and Gav. You get the respect
you deserve Ant. BUT that just doesn't translate to final editorial
rights on anything published as "MoQ". Sorry, but that is my point, to
de-personalise the editorial question. The point I keep asking you to
address. Your claiming those rights risks undermining that respect.

David H, sounds to me like you're doing the sensible thing in response
to this lot. What you are trying to do with "your" (adopted) wiki in
terms of editorial review. In terms of compiling stuff, the more
inputs and formats the merrier. (Clearly some people on here don't
appreciate that wikis and wikipedia are different things, nor the
effort that goes into running a good wiki.) That said, I do support
the idea that it would be preferable that all available inputs /
efforts get some form of concensus on behalf of "this group", so I'd
still see your efforts as part of Gav's towards an MoQ primer ...
certainly they must avoid being conflicting and unnecessarily
duplicating, and should cross-link directly as appropriate. Other
people, Mark, Rebecca have volunteered their contributions directly to
Gav's MF idea, and I will too.

(Arlo, you are correct about Ant's exiting work including good primer
material. I had not overlooked that, but had simply referred to
Pirsig.Org as the source for that.)

Unless I'm misreading the responses, it seems the concensus is that
that editorial effort should be as loose and informal as possible. My
remaining concern is that this will prove to be wishful thinking, when
it comes to the crunch, and we will have missed a great opportunity to
progress MoQ. I would be happier if people addressed Arlo's discussion
on the "editorial team" idea.

[Arlo said].

RE: Editing contributions via MOQ-Focus.

Obviously, Ant's thesis (any one thesis) could not capture all the vibrant
dimensions of how Pirsig's work resonates with every other idea. My personal
interests include relating Pirsig to Dewey, Bourdieu, Marx and Peirce. But I
don't think we should discount the resonance he has had with crowds from
Randians to Dawkinsians. As much as I'd appreciate the honor serving an
editorial role, I'd cede that to Craig, Marsha, Khaled, Platt or Case (assuming
the other editorial positions of Gav, Rebecca, David H and David B are a
given), all of who I may vehemently disagree with on some issues, or
ubiquitously nod in agreement with on others, but all of whom represent a valid
and divergent interpretation of the MOQ. Its one thing to argue it out in a
forum, its another to legitimize a perspective through exclusion. Now, having
said that, I'd assume that all contributions met a standard of citation and
logical progression. I envinsion, for example, a "special topics journal",
where one author has a "stage", but is responded to from four or five divergent
perspectives. In short, I admire and agree with Gav, Rebecca, and both Davids
too much to think that we'd form a truly fair committee. (And going on the
assumption that Ian has discluded himself, and Ant's skin is too thick...).
Besides, as an adherent of Vygotskian socio-cultural theory, I am used to
receiving reviewer feedback that says from one person "you are a loon" to
another "you rock". If every reviewer was an SCTist, my life would be easier,
but it would be less honest. [Arlo Ends]

Onward and upward
Sincerely
Ian
PS Horse not seen any traffic on MF ... did I miss it ?


On 10/8/06, David Harding <davidharding at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> > Horse wrote:
> > I think what Ant means here is that I perform essentially the same
> > function with a Wiki as I currently do with MD, which is, in the case of
> >
> > MD, to keep an eye on how discussions develop and step in if it looks
> > like serious conflict is likely. Oh yeah, and kicking off people who get
> >
> > really stupid as happens very occasionally. It's not something I have to
> >
> > do with any regularity these days as MD is pretty much self-regulating.
> > In the case of an MOQ Wiki I'd like it to come under the moq.org
> > umbrella (probably moqtalk.org) and would only want input if there was
> > anyone or anything that would be considered damaging to the MoQ, Robert
> > Pirsig or individual members etc.
> > As to joining the editorial team, I'd be quite happy to stand aside and
> > let a group of folk that I (and Ant) trust get on with it. I'm sure we
> > could hammer out a set of mutually agreed rules without too much trouble
> >
> > or conflict.
> > Does that sound reasonable?
> >
>
> David:
> Yeah, rules are good.
>
> Horse wrote:
> > I think that with the right group of people any work here could be
> > spread fairly and minimised. It's really just a case of getting the
> > right group and making sure they all have the same goal in mind.
> > Although this is probably easier sad than done to be honest. Again, I'd
> > only want to get involved if there were conflicts to resolve that
> > couldn't be resolved between group members.
> >
> > There's no way I'd want to micro-manage or interfere in the general
> > running of things as I'm just too bloody lazy. :)
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> Yes, this all sounds like a good idea as I think it addresses somewhat Ians concerns that the MOQ Wiki was not 'being looked after sufficiently' when it runs under the MOQ name.  I've emailed Gert-Jan Peeters for the current Wiki files and I'll send them onto you if that's okay?
>
> Cheers,
>
> David.
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>