Re: [jox] Debrief and clarification process
- From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:55:56 +0200
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
Hi Nate, all
hmm... it seems weird that this was settled so quickly.`
We wanted to release yesterday so as to unleash the Second Wave of Spam (the bio-hack cfp) and this was one of many fixes that had to be made... I did indicate on Sunday that there would have to be a time-limit in order to release something on time. Alex's points did seem coherent with the general direction and specificity of this project - we can keep discussing though.
1) i think it is ok to have publishing drafts as the default option.
however, i don't like the idea of asking people who opt out to
rationale. this kind of goes against the whole point of opting out.
Well, the provision of a rationale is useful if we make draft-publication _mandatory_. If people can just opt out then it's not mandatory.
I mean personally I tend to agree with Amy, as in "how many people are going to spend time comparing versions anyways? - not many" but then again this has the benefit of being quite clear - everything is out there...
2) @mathieu - although it's a response to amy's concerns, the
incorporated in the review process section about not being harsh when
submitting draft look a bit out of place. it's too idiosyncratic
to the other material. amy does however raise an interesting and
importantpoint, which invites us to think about what making
things visible means and
about how we might need to highlight certain things with
we should make a 'things to consider before submitting your
draft' list that
covers these kinds of things. i'm sure more will emerge as we go.
Yes, that's a good point - I incorporated this in the "Publication" part of the peer review process but it would probably be a good idea to have a section with other tips relating to the relatively novel policy of publishing drafts.
So, anything else apart from "watch your tone, young'un"?
ps. Looking over the peer review page I realised I forgot to delete the "evidence" category for signals or replace it with the new one. This is now done:
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: yes / no
pps. The peer review process also states "To offer a counterpoint to expert reviews, anyone who registers an identity with the site will be able to rate articles, and comment on articles." Comments can be enabled but as we have no web-based rating system I am proposing to delete the part about community rating?
ppps. As a result of the release announcements, we have some new subscribers to this list - welcome all!
24 minutes ago Alex Halavais wrote:
My concern with making it optional is that most people
default is to do what you are familiar and comfortable with. I'll
admit that despite my push for making this the requirement,
would--if given the option--be unlikely to open my draft up.
publish it on my site or something, probably, but why would
I take a
risk when others will not.
I think it's a cultural question. The same goes for software: Not
every software is written well and of high quality. It may
for some pieces if you look at the sources...
Still today in Free Software there is a culture of publishing
everything - good or bad. That culture needs encouraging. For Free
Software it's mandatory. And people with bad software also
next job - still it's published. Though there are certainly
differences may be we can learn from this example.