User:Nick0252/CommunityPP

BIIIG Note. If you stumble across this it's far from finished. I need a week or so to compile all my thoughts. It's littered with notes to myself and written in a non formal, ad hoc way. Like one Giiiant forum post :) Nick0252 05:25, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Introduction

Alrightity, I'm making this little page as a spin off from forumtopic:31956, in particular forumpost:450070 that I made. I've given this topic a bit of thought because I think it's important to the future of DP. That said, it could well be that everything I write here is flawed rubbish that will never work--after all, I'm hardly an experienced Post Processor. At the least, I hope something I might write here will contribute positively to the debate around the concept.

My Concept in General

Essentially what I'm talking about here is essentially a completely decentralised method of PPing. As I wrote in my forum post, I'd consider three strands of PP ideal.

• The current model. One user checks out a book and completes it
• An offshoot of the above model where the user who checks the book out has the ability to farm out specific tasks which would be required to be completed to his/her specifications.
• A 'community effort' where everyone who wishes to contributes to the book until it meets required standards <--- This is what I am talking about below

Goals

Obviously if we are going to look seriously at doing this we need a clearly articulated set of goals, as they more than anything else will act as a guide in helping us design any possible future Distributed/Community PP phase.

Obviously the overarching goal would be something along the lines of

• To Produce E-Books (or any other output DP may produce in the future) to our communities accepted standards suitable for inclusion in PG (or any other archives we may work with in the future) ((note to self: theres a forum post somewhere relevant to this to chase up))

Obviously we'd need to have a number of other goals for such a process, some of which might need to be

• To develop the process in such a way that adds little, if any, strain to PPV and moderation resources [1]
• To develop a method that does not reduce the current output of the Post Processing Phase
• To develop a method that does not negatively impact, preferably positively impacts, the morale of DPers [2]

[1] - It has been mentioned in the thread on this topic that such a concept may be useful in allowing new PPers to ease into the process. In which case we need to consider a goal of making a system and process that assists new PPers in settling into PP in a non-intimidating way. If we can do this successfully it is a possible we could reduce the strain on PPV resources.

[2] - This could be as simple as increasing the site output. Delays in the production process always seem to be a point of contention.

Ideals/Values

In discussing my thoughts on how such a process should work with a couple of fellow DPers in Jabber it's been pointed out that my views are quite idealist. Perhaps this is because I'm a youngin' who hasn't been around long enough to see how the real world works yet to know it just doesn't work this way.

I consider a bit like a line scale. On one end we have strict Guidelines that each individual must follow in their work. This is probably more in line with the definition of the term "distributed" and is what happens in the rounds. On the other it's possible to have have a community that negotiates, communicates and maybe debates before reaching a consensus on how to proceed. In the end they could both produce a consistent output.

One of the joys of PPing seems to be that the PPer has the liberty to tweak and customise the appearence and features of a book, within reason. If we developed a strict set of guidelines we would more or less have all projects coming out of this PP method more or less looking the same. Kind of takes the fun out of it (my view)

In my initital post I was probably writing more from the extreme "community" end of the scale. In reality that was indeed probably a little ideal. That said, however, in this potential aspect to the site I'd personally rather see us start at the "community" end, embracing the community and the expertise within it, and working back along the line towards the 'guidelines' end until we find the balance. --Have I confused anyone with all that!!

Leadership vs. Ownership

The thread on Distributed PP seems to have looked at how we can break up the current process. While a good start, I think we also need to ask ourselves do we need to change the process somewhat for the distributed PP model. I'd suspect in places for it to work we'd have to.

I'd ask the question is it Leadership or Ownership we need in the process. I think we need to lean towards Leadership. In the rounds one of the issues rountinely encountered is PMs who are MIA. It's arguable that this is a slight flaw. If we developed a method of Community PP where any one DPer was "in charge" of the books process we'd sooner or later run into the same issue and have the same set of problems the Missing PMs generate--(difficult to get answers, no1 knows what to do, work done inconsistently because of this, projects stalling.) Hence I think it's important to get this right the first time and design something that avoids these problems.

This is where the concept of leadership comes in. I guess all I mean by leadership is that one DPer may do more of the work at one stage of the process than other DPers. When I get my possible workflow diagram up, it is probably obvious that this is more applicable at step one, which I have called an "Issues Sweep" (which encapsualtes more than just checking for missing pages/HQ Illos, as step one in the thread suggested).

It is possible though that one person may take a more vested interest in a project and participate heavily in it's PPing. This could be considered leadership, as, by participating heavily any one person would be able to offer more insightful suggestions/answers to other Community PPers comments/questions about the project and the best way to succeed. We'd also need to consider how much involvement is too much.

Further Questions:

• While I don't think each project would need a visible "leader" (like a PM), if a Distribted PP concept were to be a training ground should we be looking at coding for each project to have the possibility to have a visible "leader" assigned, particularly for training projects--to guide slightly more strongly and be a contact point to mentor and explain the why's to new volunteers. Such a provision could also be utilised if any one project goes horribly pear shaped and needs stronger guidance.