Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi!

Rodrigo and I made some iterations on the wiki.

https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary/wiki/Principles

I added first version of "reputation" page, where I wrote some ideas
about how our reputation system backing the collaborative editing nature
of PeerLibrary could work. It is very much a work in progress.

https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary/wiki/Reputation-%28Karma%29

(Please help with finding a better name than "karma".)

Feel free to comment anything, by simply editing the wiki and iterating
further, or discussing it here or wherever. In general I am in favor of
simply editing things first, iterating until we converge on ideas or
wording or if we see that we cannot, then anybody can trigger a
discussion. (Rodrigo, I readded some things you removed, but I think are
important. I commented in commit message why. Feel free to remove them
again, or open a discussion.) Any change is just another iteration in
common search for the unachievable, so just do it. :-)

(Somebody should really make a wiki where you can add how much is
something important for you when you make a change. Then it would be
easier to know if something is just a stylistic change or something more
important.)

Especially for "reputation" page, please brainstorm for more ideas how
we could integrate users into PeerLibrary. What you had in past wanted
to do on some website, but were not able? I would love to see that in
some way anything can in some process be changed by users, or at least a
change proposed.

There is one interesting question to discuss, linked to our class some
of us are taking. In previous versions of principles I wrote that we try
to be horizontally organized, but that in case that we cannot achieve
consensus, those who participate more (not just code-wise, but in
general) have more say, but that they of course should not overuse this,
to prevent possible forking. Rodrigo made a different version of this,
that we are horizontally organized, but have to be careful about tyranny
of structureless, to prevent possible forking. Personally, I think it is
better to explicitly recognize that while we try to be as inclusive and
horizontal as possible, the practice will probably be that those who
participate more will have more say. I think that both specifying an
ideal (horizontal organization) and a way how we diverge from it (merit
and engagement) is a good approach. Through karma points we even have
some explicit information about the merit and engagement. What do you
think? I do not think this is at this point so important to resolve
immediately, but it can be a good topic for discussions over the food
when we cannot code at the same time. :-)


Mitar

--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

---

• [PeerLibrary dev] Wiki - principles and reputation, Mitar, 11/18/2013
  • Re: [PeerLibrary dev] Wiki - principles and reputation, Mitar, 11/25/2013

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.