Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi!

Rodrigo and I discussed our principles a bit more and we made another
iteration.

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

:-)


Mitar

> 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.