Humaniformrobot at 22:44, 20 March 2026

2026-03-20T22:44:00Z

Humaniformrobot: Humaniformrobot moved page Outreach 2021/07/27 to Outreach 2021-07-27

2026-03-20T22:35:56Z

Humaniformrobot moved page Outreach 2021/07/27 to Outreach 2021-07-27

Humaniformrobot: Humaniformrobot moved page Outreach 07/27/2021 to Outreach 2021/07/27

2026-03-20T22:23:08Z

Humaniformrobot moved page Outreach 07/27/2021 to Outreach 2021/07/27

Wodensday: /* Agenda */

2021-07-28T02:19:17Z

Agenda

Wodensday: /* Attendees */

2021-07-28T02:18:09Z

Attendees

Wodensday: /* Transcript */

2021-07-28T02:16:00Z

Transcript

Wodensday: Created page with "= Attendees = =Agenda= ===New Business=== *Website: writer recruitment and editorial process =Summary= = Transcript ="

2021-07-28T00:41:56Z

Created page with "= Attendees = =Agenda= ===New Business=== *Website: writer recruitment and editorial process =Summary= = Transcript ="

New page

= Attendees =

=Agenda=

===New Business===

*Website: writer recruitment and editorial process

=Summary=

= Transcript =

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 20 March 2026
Line 109:		Line 109:

	</nowiki>		</nowiki>
		+	[[Category: Outreach Minutes]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 28 July 2021
Line 12:		Line 12:

	= Transcript =		= Transcript =
		+
		+	<nowiki>
		+
		+	[8:01:33 PM] <wodensday> On that note, I do believe we can start.
		+	[8:01:45 PM] <wodensday> May I get some IDs?
		+	[8:01:50 PM] <wodensday> Anthony Jay, IN
		+	[8:01:58 PM] <Radiojoe> William Dappen, California
		+	[8:02:01 PM] <pmchi> Mitchel Davilo, Chicagoland/ILPP, Swarmcare Manager
		+	[8:02:15 PM] <Yari> Rose klein, CA, uspp chair
		+	[8:03:03 PM] <wodensday> Agenda: https://wiki.uspirates.org/w/index.php?title=Outreach_07/27/2021
		+	[8:03:06 PM] <papegaai> Title: Outreach 07/27/2021 - United States Pirate Party (at wiki.uspirates.org)
		+	[8:04:20 PM] <Yari> Also I'm going to have to leave at ~9:30, apologies in advance.
		+	[8:04:40 PM] <wodensday> Noted. Thank you for letting us know!
		+	[8:05:07 PM] <wodensday> During our last meeting, we ruled that outreach will be responsible for managing website writers and content. This is our big topic.
		+	[8:05:48 PM] <wodensday> That is, we need a system of writer recruitment and some sort of editorial system.
		+	[8:06:45 PM] <Yari> True. A tall order!
		+	[8:07:27 PM] <Yari> Recruitment seems to me a bit more difficult, honestly.
		+	[8:07:55 PM] <wodensday> I do think there is a case to be made that recruitment is the tall-er order.
		+	[8:08:08 PM] <wodensday> Would you like to start with editorial, then?
		+	[8:08:21 PM] <Yari> I would suggest we first debate editing and simply apply it to those who voolunteer
		+	[8:09:15 PM] <wodensday> That sounds like a solid plan.
		+	[8:10:13 PM] <wodensday> We debated a bit about editing during the last meeting, so I will post the notes for reference https://wiki.uspirates.org/w/index.php?title=Outreach_07/20/2021
		+	[8:10:14 PM] <papegaai> Title: Outreach 07/20/2021 - United States Pirate Party (at wiki.uspirates.org)
		+	[8:10:44 PM] <pmchi> Perhaps a two-person verification? We could have people openly submit articles as the please, then have an email notification sent to moderators to approve the article submitted
		+	[8:11:37 PM] <pmchi> Maybe a voted editor and one elected board or chair member to process and approve
		+	[8:12:31 PM] <Yari> pmchi i like that actually
		+	[8:12:41 PM] <Radiojoe> For an alternative editing system, we could use a google drive account with comment and suggestion permissions to anyone. the process would go as follows:
		+	[8:13:17 PM] <wodensday> During the last meeting, I heard some concern about centralizing editing power. Do we still have that concern?
		+	[8:13:26 PM] <Radiojoe> 1. someone sends a document to a drive moderator, they do a simple check over for general sanity, then the document is published on the discord, and after a few rounds of public editing, it is brought back to the writer to confirm intent, then published
		+	[8:13:45 PM] <Yari> Would highly suggest against google drive/docs, but i have suggestions for similar products that have less security concerns
		+	[8:14:28 PM] <Radiojoe> alright, i just used that as a common example, that part is less important than the process
		+	[8:15:08 PM] <wodensday> I do like what you're saying, Radiojoe, though too intricate of a process could make article turnaround too slow.
		+	[8:15:12 PM] <Yari> Wodensday my main concern was centralizing editing power with one constant person or with the officers
		+	[8:16:16 PM] <Yari> Aka no person should have a monopoly on our org's speech
		+	[8:16:22 PM] <wodensday> Yes, yes
		+	[8:16:44 PM] <Radiojoe> i understand what you are saying wodensday, that would definitely be an issue, maybe we can find a common middle ground?
		+	[8:17:20 PM] <Radiojoe> between pmchi and my idea, i mean,
		+	[8:17:57 PM] <wodensday> Fast but still democratic, the pipe dream of governance.
		+	[8:18:59 PM] <wodensday> Would it be possible to have a centralized power that quickly rotates?
		+	[8:19:26 PM] <pmchi> I think the problem with public editing is that it’s susceptible to chaos. HOWEVER, what I think would be cool could be an “editor” role on Discord. Perhaps you could choose to be pinged everytime an article is submitted, and you then would get to edit the article and approve it for a board/chair member’s approval before posting
		+	[8:19:59 PM] <pmchi> Role could be given out by request, and only with moderator approval
		+	[8:20:44 PM] <pmchi> Or, since you do have to deal with the ping, it could be totally voluntary
		+	[8:21:12 PM] <Radiojoe> wodensday, that sounds like a good idea for larger groups, but at least from my experience, that quick-cycle approach is a fast way to run out of people who want to do a job except a select few, making it equivalent to a long-term role
		+	[8:22:33 PM] <Radiojoe> an editor role, however, may be a good idea, if its large enough, and the people in said role understand the duties of said role, it could be just as fast as the moderator technique
		+	[8:24:05 PM] <wodensday> I'm hearing a suggested split between those who edit and those who approve, is this correct?
		+	[8:24:11 PM] <Yari> slightly concerned with connecting this to discord, but its definitely doable
		+	[8:26:35 PM] <pmchi> It could be a role you could take away just as easy as you give it. You’d know the editor who approved it, so if it’s trolling or nonsense or something they wrote themselves, we could take away their role (I don’t think editors should approve their own written articles, a separate editor should have to do so in the interest of fairness and transparency)
		+	[8:26:42 PM] <Radiojoe> wodensday, I believe so, at least from what I gleaned
		+	[8:28:26 PM] <pmchi> It would be a three person process. Open to the public to write, up to the editor to see if it’s good, then a final check by board/chair
		+	[8:28:31 PM] <wodensday> I do like this. It certainly helps balance the power dynamics. If the electorate can approve or deny, but cannot make any changes themselves, this encourages discussion and barter between the parties
		+	[8:29:12 PM] <Radiojoe> what happens if the piece is denied?
		+	[8:29:53 PM] <wodensday> Only denied in its current state, I assume. To be worked on by the editor and writer for another submission, unless it's terrible
		+	[8:30:07 PM] <Yari> I suppose my concern comes because i know that discord is a temporary home for us, but at the same time I have to acknowledge that it is our current main organizing tool and we can always shift to something else
		+	[8:30:10 PM] <Radiojoe> ok
		+	[8:30:39 PM] <Yari> tldr this system will work for now, sounds like a good idea
		+	[8:31:26 PM] <wodensday> If you all are in agreement, feel free to work on a resolution.
		+	[8:31:41 PM] <pmchi> The journey of a thousand miles began with a single step
		+	[8:33:03 PM] <Yari> Unfortunately i have to go, good luck with the resolution.
		+	[8:33:13 PM] <Radiojoe> yari, I agree that that is an issue with the current model, but this process seems to be modular enough, atleast in theory, to move to a website once the time is right
		+	[8:33:21 PM] <Radiojoe> oh,welp
		+	[8:33:35 PM] <Yari> Radiojoe exactly
		+	[8:34:06 PM] <wodensday> Thank you for making it!
		+	[8:34:10 PM] <Yari> Goodnight all
		+	[8:34:31 PM] <pmchi> Goodnight!
		+	[8:37:55 PM] <wodensday> Would a brave volunteer like to step forward and create a proposal?
		+	[8:40:33 PM] <wodensday> If we wish to, we can also table this discussion and move on to a topic of someone's liking
		+	[8:41:21 PM] <Radiojoe> I can try,
		+	[8:42:05 PM] <wodensday> Go for it! Just clearly, directly outline the process you would like to implement
		+	[8:45:19 PM] <pmchi> sent to the elected board and chair member, notifying a pending, editor approved article for submission. One (1) of said elected members then must approve the article to be published.
		+	[8:45:19 PM] <pmchi> I would like to formally propose an open submission feature for articles on USPirates.org that is available for anyone wishing to submit an article. Upon submission, those assigned an “Editor” role on Discord, who will be assigned their roles following a process of request and approval by moderators, will be pinged, and notified of an article needing approval. Should the article be approved by the “Editor”, a final email will be
		+	[8:47:07 PM] <pmchi> Note: article for approval notifications should also appear in the “#announcements” section of Discord, but all those with “Editor” roles should be pinged
		+	[8:47:07 PM] <wodensday> Pmchi, do you have an input?
		+	[8:47:40 PM] <pmchi> Radiojoe:
		+	[8:48:15 PM] <wodensday> Whoops, wrong ping
		+	[8:51:15 PM] <pmchi> I would suggest we also have rules for editor in the “#rules” section. Perhaps even with a “Check here if you read and agree” that, if you request the role and you haven’t checked it yet, then you didn’t read the rules and won’t be approved
		+	[8:51:57 PM] <pmchi> Almost a litmus test before you’re even editor
		+	[8:55:35 PM] <wodensday> I suggest we table this discussion due to an inability to truly vote on it. Is that alright with you?
		+	[8:56:05 PM] <pmchi> I agree
		+	[8:56:30 PM] <wodensday> It would feel undemocratic if I pass you by default, as much as I kind of want to
		+	[8:57:33 PM] <pmchi> I just wanted a formal proposal draft written up, I’m absolutely fine with waiting for more input
		+	[8:57:56 PM] <wodensday> I think we made fantastic progress today, though
		+	[8:59:31 PM] <Radiojoe> hey, sorry, I was afk, had somew issues in hte home that had to be dealt with
		+	[9:00:05 PM] <wodensday> That is perfectly alright. Would you two like to extend this or adjourn?
		+	[9:01:44 PM] <Radiojoe> uhm, the process outlined by pmchi makes sense to me, I see no further need for discussion on the topic, anyone else?
		+	[9:02:48 PM] <wodensday> We would need a vote to solidify, which would require a few more minutes.
		+	[9:04:27 PM] <Radiojoe> ok then, I'm fine with extending for a vote
		+	[9:05:48 PM] <pmchi> We should give it one more week. I’d like this to be a main discussion, any improvements or input on how the proposal will be sent to the PNC, as well as making sure it’s worded as we please, I believe is necessary
		+	[9:06:47 PM] <wodensday> Sounds good. Can I take that as an informal motion to adjourn?
		+	[9:07:15 PM] <pmchi> I’ll formally propose it
		+	[9:07:21 PM] <pmchi> Motion to adjourn?
		+	[9:09:28 PM] <pmchi> 𐑲
		+	[9:09:33 PM] <pmchi> Oops
		+	[9:10:58 PM] <wodensday> I believe I should probably call it
		+	[9:11:42 PM] <wodensday> Meeting adjourned at 10:11 PM eastern daylight time.
		+
		+	</nowiki>

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 =Agenda=
 ===New Business===
 *Website: writer recruitment and editorial process

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 = Attendees =
+*Anthony Jay, IN
 =Agenda=