SC chatsession 4: 2008-04-26

Times are CET+1

[18:16:26] quisquilia has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 18:16
[18:16:37] @ quisquilia : Hello
[18:17:08] @ quisquilia : Ok, I guess I'm here too early / too late ?
[18:17:21] @ hmvh : ah, there's two of us now!
[18:18:51] @ hmvh : Everyone was invited or is aware of today's chat?
[18:19:24] @ quisquilia : azzurro is logged in at least
[18:20:44] @ hmvh : azzurro was logged in at least.
[18:22:31] @ hmvh : http://www.kollecta.com/Collector/Stormbringer
[18:23:10] @ quisquilia : well, there he has his vision realised
[18:23:47] @ quisquilia : Can't fin a specfied time for today's session in the posting...
[18:23:58] @ quisquilia : ... at https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-public-f19/steering-committee-chat-topics-april-26-2008-t220.htm
[18:24:26] @ quisquilia : Might be the reason why we're just two ppl around
[18:26:30] @ quisquilia : Does it make sense to start on the issues listed in above posting?
[18:26:54] @ hmvh : Yeah, but this is time we've used before... I'd assume it's a given?
[18:28:20] @ hmvh : And we're still on the "vision", which hasn't been defined yet.
[18:29:13] @ quisquilia : Right, I'm currently trying to get u-to-date on all the postings...
[18:29:20] @ hmvh : Well, and I hope Storm finds what he's looking for over there. It could be useful and looks like a bit of fun.
[18:29:45] @ quisquilia : ... this project becomes difficult with all these forums and sub-forums
[18:33:03] @ quisquilia : Ok, in https://discogs.actieforum.com/5-technical-database-format-and-structure-f9/tech-calling-all-coders-can-we-do-it-t206.htm ...
[18:33:23] @ quisquilia : ... asylum says we need to ge the tech side going...
[18:33:44] @ quisquilia : As I lack in-depth knowledge I cannot help with that...
[18:34:33] @ quisquilia : ... and Vision is good and all, but TWO people will hadly be able to formulate a complete and acceptable vision...
[18:34:52] @ hmvh : Tech must get going but what with?
[18:35:05] @ quisquilia : ... for a site se keen on democratic and participatory elements.
[18:35:23] @ hmvh : THere was also going to be some headway on the server/hosting discussions, IIRC.
[18:35:54] @ hmvh : Yep... the two of us cannot define/refine the vision on our own.
[18:36:07] @ hmvh : Also: Who was going to contact our legal department? What came of it?
[18:36:23] dmaxx has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 18:36
[18:36:39] @ dmaxx : Hi everyone
[18:36:53] @ hmvh : It's a threesome now.
[18:37:02] @ quisquilia : Hei! Three now!
[18:37:11] @ dmaxx : LOL @http://www.kollecta.com/Collector/Stormbringer
[18:37:18] @ dmaxx : Hope he will find what he needs there
[18:37:31] @ quisquilia : Moren than 25 % of the SC! Almost a quorum!
[18:37:49] @ dmaxx : We'll get there... Smile
[18:38:13] @ quisquilia : Ok, dmaxx, there's a couple (lots) of issues to be addressed...
[18:38:20] @ dmaxx : Saw this? : http://www.discographydb.info/1.jpg
[18:38:27] @ dmaxx : It's the beginning...
[18:38:33] @ quisquilia : ... tech & BFL need to get going...
[18:38:35] @ dmaxx : Yes, a lot of issues indeed
[18:38:38] @ dmaxx : I have some hours
[18:38:55] @ quisquilia : ... but hmvh wants to address vision I think
[18:40:00] @ dmaxx : I'll discuss whatever the SC wants to
[18:40:18] @ quisquilia : Where can I see a list in which subgroup we SC members are involved?
[18:41:07] @ hmvh : http://www.discographydb.info/1.jpg is not funny, on many levels.
[18:41:14] @ quisquilia : I opt for Vision to get that thing done / started.
[18:41:20] @ dmaxx : hmvh: why not
[18:41:33] @ dmaxx : quisquilla: don't know if such a list exists
[18:41:58] @ hmvh : Yes, it's at https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/sc-mission-statement-and-sub-groups-t205.htm
[18:42:09] @ dmaxx : Ah that lisy
[18:42:12] @ dmaxx : list*
[18:42:13] @ hmvh : posted by deejsasqui
[18:42:48] @ hmvh : Actually, dmaxx -- I had something specifically for you:
[18:43:02] @ hmvh : 1. Who was going to contact our legal department? What came of it?
[18:43:09] @ hmvh : 2. Newsletter: Can we get it out soonest because I see a lot of people that were active (and vocal) in the beginning that haven't logged in for quite some time.
[18:44:06] @ dmaxx : 1. legal department = pano? I will contact him if needed, no probs
[18:44:14] @ dmaxx : 2. I was thinking about sending it tomorrow
[18:44:34] @ dmaxx : So if there are things that can be better, they can be discussed here
[18:45:31] azzurro has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 18:45
[18:45:44] @ azzurro : Hi guys good afternoon
[18:45:46] @ quisquilia : I agree with hmvh that the SC should work with "experts" where necessary...
[18:45:49] @ dmaxx : Hi azzurro
[18:45:59] @ quisquilia : Hi, azzurro
[18:46:01] @ hmvh : pano and nibble: it was his wife that had some legal background, but he's absconded?
[18:46:30] @ quisquilia : As I asked last week: Is there some news about lazlo?
[18:46:50] @ hmvh : Nope. Sent him a PM but zilch response.
[18:47:09] @ dmaxx : quisquilla: no news
[18:47:39] @ quisquilia : As the legal stuff is (ATM) rather background checking it'd be great...
[18:48:04] @ quisquilia : ... to contact our experts and get them to assess it
[18:48:33] @ quisquilia : ... although it looks we agree that Europe is not exactly the best choice for hosting this site
[18:48:48] @ hmvh : And get their asses into it?
[18:48:57] @ dmaxx : I'd prefer the USA
[18:48:58] @ hmvh : Your post "As I've already said, given EU anti-discrimination policies and national legislations in addition"... was spot on.
[18:49:29] @ hmvh : Yes, USA would be a good choice.
[18:49:54] @ quisquilia : Prolly yeah
[18:50:05] @ azzurro : think so too
[18:50:27] @ quisquilia : But is US also good to maintain control about the DB / its data?
[18:51:01] @ dmaxx : I suppose it is
[18:51:12] @ quisquilia : OT: dmaxx, azzurro needs a @ :-)
[18:51:13] @ hmvh : How do you mean, Q?
[18:51:26] @ dmaxx : azzuro, I will promote you to mod
[18:51:33] @ dmaxx : Forgot to do it, sorry
[18:52:23] @ quisquilia : Do we have someone we trust enough to register the "company" / organisation?
[18:52:42] @ quisquilia : Someone in the States I mean.
[18:52:43] @ azzurro : doesn't matter, I've always been a bit of late-comming Razz
[18:52:59] @ dmaxx : Does it have to be an American?
[18:53:02] @ hmvh : Does that matter where they are, US or elsewhere?
[18:53:11] @ dmaxx : pano (Spain)
[18:53:29] @ quisquilia : I dunno. Thought so. I'm not an expert on legal matters, that's why I ask.
[18:53:47] @ hmvh : Spain: Home of the post thieves, judging by the Marketplace discussions at that other place...
[18:54:12] @ quisquilia : ... and the Jazz lovers, given pano
[18:55:06] @ hmvh : Need a 5min break.
[18:56:38] @ dmaxx : Ok
[18:59:19] @ hmvh : I'm back.
[19:01:11] @ quisquilia : Ok, let's ask pano as our expert to look into legal questions WRT hosting a site / documenting all releases / copyright issues
[19:01:34] @ dmaxx : Good
[19:02:00] @ quisquilia : and later probably also check the organisational design of a non-profit body
[19:02:03] @ dmaxx : About flagging releases fascist etc. : https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/more-mission-statement-thoughts-t214.htm#4998
[19:02:28] @ dmaxx : Who's in favour?
[19:02:44] @ hmvh : Just read that post: In favour of a "warning -- potentially offensive" flag.
[19:03:24] @ azzurro : same here. it has bene brought up on Ogss a couple of times, although only about deleting those ietsm
[19:03:29] @ quisquilia : hmvh - in regard to images / artwork or in regard t selling?
[19:04:06] @ quisquilia : I want to see ALL releases documented... but NOT all valid for trade.
[19:04:09] @ azzurro : and I think flagging them is best of both worlds
[19:04:29] @ dmaxx : I'm in favour of allowing every release to be added AND sold
[19:04:36] @ quisquilia : At Discogs there is lots of WAR trading going on.
[19:04:44] @ dmaxx : Unless it's to risky to allow selling
[19:05:14] @ hmvh : Why are we discussing a marketplace?
[19:05:45] @ azzurro : hmvh - good question, we should focus on teh DB now first
[19:05:52] @ dmaxx : I think there's a majority pro marketplace? Or am I wrong here?
[19:06:17] @ dmaxx : I would start flagging releases etc.
[19:06:17] @ quisquilia : Because if we decide to include a trading platform (now or later) we should be able to deal with problems of this sort
[19:06:24] @ azzurro : that's true, but wasn't the marketplace something for a later date
[19:06:29] @ dmaxx : But adding warning pics as primary is fine by me
[19:06:47] @ dmaxx : I wouldn't* start flagging releases
[19:07:21] @ hmvh : Yes, but now you're bringing in more legal questions of matters of ownership, profit, taxes. Let's concentrate on raw data for now.
[19:08:39] @ quisquilia : Ok, Warning instead of primary image / thumbnail for offensive releases / artwork - do we agree on THAT point?
[19:08:49] @ hmvh : OK: There's four of us here now. What results can us four achive right here, right now?
[19:09:02] @ hmvh : Yes, Q -- I agree.
[19:09:15] @ dmaxx : q: Y
[19:09:20] @ azzurro : Q: Y
[19:09:45] @ quisquilia : Ok, then on to the next topic...
[19:10:06] @ quisquilia : Raw data, hmvh?
[19:10:13] @ dmaxx : Who is keeping track of every made decision?
[19:11:05] @ hmvh : The database. Getting stuff into it and getting people to use it, Q.
[19:11:57] @ hmvh : dmaxx, this decision falls into the "mission statement" of the site, regarding censorship and social responsibility...
[19:12:32] @ hmvh : Ergo: part of the "vision". We've actually just agreed to allow EVERY RELEASE (with pictures) to be added.
[19:12:51] @ quisquilia : Last question: Do moderators decide after request / check what is offensive artwork or what else process?
[19:13:24] @ dmaxx : quisquilla: cheers for updating the topic, you were just ahead of me Smile
[19:13:35] @ hmvh : Could be built into the submission form: flagged by submitter or moderator, I'd say?
[19:13:49] @ dmaxx : I'll update the "Mission Statement" topic if you aren't busy with it yet
[19:13:50] @ azzurro : I think the warning image should be processed the same way as normal images
[19:13:58] @ dmaxx : ^ Y
[19:14:07] @ quisquilia : Prone to abuse if submitters can just decide for themselves...
[19:14:43] @ azzurro : so request can be made by submitters and moderators, and than mods decide
[19:14:56] @ quisquilia : OT: dmaxx, have you copied the chat so far?
[19:15:00] @ azzurro : although, it might need a separate queue to handle these things quickly
[19:15:07] @ quisquilia : azzurro, agree.
[19:15:20] @ dmaxx : "Every release, regardless of it's content, is allowed in the database for *** purposes". (Educational/Informational purposes?)
[19:15:35] @ dmaxx : quisquilla: everything copied
[19:15:47] @ hmvh : Part of the original submission or just another release edit?
[19:16:02] @ quisquilia : it's -> its //// thx, dmaxx
[19:16:32] @ dmaxx : ^ Thx. What suits best: educational purposes OR informational purposes
[19:16:41] @ dmaxx : Or something else?
[19:16:51] @ azzurro : hmvh - both, but preferred at the original sub of course
[19:16:59] @ quisquilia : hmvh, either way. Just a tick box, and mos need to check if that box is activated.
[19:17:08] @ quisquilia : mos = mods
[19:17:15] @ hmvh : Thinking ahead, I'm envisaging various kinds of moderators: those for comments, some for subs, some for artists, some for releases. Of course everyone could do everything but it would be good to pick out who's best in what expe
[19:17:33] @ azzurro : dmaxx - i'ld go for informational, seems broader to me
[19:17:34] @ hmvh : ...should be just another queue, I reckon.
[19:17:48] @ dmaxx : azzurro: cheers
[19:17:51] @ hmvh : My thoughs... tickbox is good, yes.
[19:18:09] @ quisquilia : dmaxx: "documentation purposes" / "cataloguing purposes" ?
[19:18:29] @ hmvh : informational / historical...
[19:19:18] @ dmaxx : hm...
[19:19:22] @ dmaxx : difficult
[19:19:33] @ dmaxx : documentation = information
[19:19:40] @ dmaxx : cataloguing = information
[19:19:46] @ dmaxx : history = information
[19:19:57] @ dmaxx : information seems to cover everything
[19:20:16] @ quisquilia : "... for purposes of information, education, and documentation" ?
[19:21:09] @ dmaxx : Fine for me too.
[19:21:12] @ dmaxx : Looks pro
[19:22:20] @ quisquilia : Cool. :-)
[19:22:42] @ quisquilia : Sorry, need to go get groceries...
[19:22:57] @ dmaxx : OK, see you
[19:22:58] @ quisquilia : ... will check back in about an hour.
[19:23:00] @ hmvh : OK.
[19:23:09] quisquilia is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 19:23
[19:23:10] @ azzurro : K see ya
[19:24:14] @ hmvh : What next?
[19:26:05] @ azzurro : maybe the vision: https://discogs.actieforum.com/11-other-f15/vis-compiling-a-collective-vision-t213.htm
[19:26:33] @ azzurro : do you guys think the suggested structure with goals - objectives - targets is fine?
[19:28:14] @ dmaxx : Just a moment while I go through the topic again.
[19:29:22] @ dmaxx : "[1.1] Only correct information can be added" ---> "[1.1] Only VERIFIED correct information can be added"
[19:29:37] @ azzurro : (the list is far from complete by the way)
[19:29:56] @ dmaxx : "[2.1] Every user should be able to participate in his preferred (mother?) language" Difficult, I agree if it's on long term
[19:30:27] @ dmaxx : The targets are fine
[19:30:35] @ azzurro : yeah. the whole document is meant as long term
[19:31:02] @ hmvh : Language is tricky... see my post here langua
[19:31:14] @ hmvh : https://discogs.actieforum.com/8-submission-guidelines-allowed-data-f12/8-system-documentation-and-user-guides-p4989.htm
[19:31:59] @ azzurro : hmvh - I think the community should be able to set this up
[19:32:39] @ azzurro : on oggs I;ve seen several attempts to translate e.g. the guidelines, even while nothing was supported by the management
[19:32:44] @ dmaxx : Yes, we will have to rely on the community for this
[19:33:28] @ hmvh : So be it then: Rewording vision should be -
[19:34:09] @ hmvh : Everyone should be able to participate in this project at his/her preferred level.
[19:35:23] @ hmvh : Although English is the primary language of the site, efforts will be made to facilitate users to comminucate and interact in the language of their choice
[19:35:36] @ hmvh : minus typos Smile
[19:35:42] @ dmaxx : Y
[19:35:54] @ azzurro : Y

[19:37:21] @ hmvh : Not terribly fond of "Language for submission fields can be set to users' preference".
[19:38:17] @ azzurro : I understand, though remember that it's a long-term target,
[19:38:17] @ hmvh : This sounds like we're having multilingual FORMS as well. User guides in all possible languages, fields in English, s'il vous plait!
[19:38:28] @ dmaxx : Me neither: otherwise mods will have to adjust to that language when commenting on misatakes
[19:38:35] @ azzurro : and thus not something which MUST be implemented at the start
[19:38:47] @ azzurro : dmaxx - that's true
[19:39:00] @ dmaxx : I agree on having RSG and tutorials in multiple languages
[19:39:08] @ dmaxx : but the inner structure should be English
[19:39:08] @ hmvh : VERY long term, not just as yet. Good call, dmaxx.
[19:39:13] @ dmaxx : Release forms etc
[19:39:40] @ dmaxx : Submission* forms etc
[19:40:15] @ hmvh : PS: the same could be said for artist and label profiles. We're not quite ready for "click here for a Mongolian version" of this article.
[19:40:32] @ dmaxx : Another question: modnotes: ENCOURAGE Enlgish or make it MANDATORY?
[19:41:03] @ hmvh : I'm gonna be nasty now:
[19:41:40] @ hmvh : ENGLISH MANDATORY. If you need help in Italian, we will try to help but cannot guarantee it.
[19:42:01] @ azzurro : difficult one, IMO strongly encouraged
[19:42:21] @ azzurro : but it would also depend on the mods we have
[19:42:43] @ dmaxx : I agree with hmvh
[19:42:57] @ dmaxx : Otherwise we can not predict the level of problems we will have
[19:43:26] @ hmvh : Don't get me wrong: I'm more than prepared to help VERY user in any language I can read and can submit, but we must put our foor down somewhere.
[19:43:34] @ dmaxx : To summarize: English is mandatory, but RSGs, rules and tutorials can be available in other languages
[19:43:39] @ azzurro : indeed, and you'll need luck to find the one or two mods who speak russian and have enough knowledge about your submission
[19:43:55] @ dmaxx : Language forums can be made to help non-English people to find their way
[19:43:55] @ hmvh : Also: Our German oggers also have a chat planned for the folks at http://hitparade.ch/ (in German).
[19:45:57] @ azzurro : OK, I think we agree on that one than?
[19:46:10] @ dmaxx : I do
[19:46:18] @ azzurro : ('bout the english mandatory, but help in other languages might be possible)
[19:46:49] @ hmvh : Correct, dmaxx -- that;s something I also insist on: tight support forum structure... dammit I had a proposed list somewhere that included language/geographic ...
[19:47:08] @ hmvh : Ah yes, good with me as well.
[19:47:39] @ dmaxx : Good. Now writing it down somewhere in the forum
[19:48:01] @ hmvh : pardon all my typos tonight, BTW.
[19:48:30] @ dmaxx : No problem
[19:48:46] @ azzurro : same here
[19:49:06] @ dmaxx : What topic are we going to post it in?
[19:49:51] @ hmvh : Post what?
[19:49:52] @ azzurro : we have an old language topic here https://discogs.actieforum.com/11-other-f15/languages-t55.htm
[19:50:17] Kergillian has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 19:50
[19:50:23] @ Kergillian : hola
[19:50:29] @ dmaxx : Hi Kergillian
[19:50:33] @ dmaxx : azzurro: topic looks good
[19:50:42] @ azzurro : Hi kerg
[19:51:00] @ hmvh : Looks fine. Plonk it there, but it's part of our VISION?
[19:51:04] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: just agreed on making English mandatory, but support all languages in forums, RSG and tutorials
[19:51:10] @ hmvh : I want that OUT OF THE WAY tonight.
[19:51:13] @ dmaxx : Also part of our vision, true
[19:51:17] @ hmvh : Hey kerg... whazzup!
[19:51:50] @ Kergillian : yah, I'd make English the main language as well since most people speak it at least passably well
[19:52:14] @ Kergillian : but I would definitely make it a goal to translate the RSG and tutorials into as many languages as possible
[19:52:34] @ Kergillian : and make sure that the terms are clear so that people know what the English terms mean
[19:53:19] @ Kergillian : Eventually we can even have the site translated like places like Hitparade are, and like games like Hattrick and Buzzerbeater are - the games are still English but the interface and rules are translated
[19:53:44] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: the inner structure won't be touched
[19:53:53] @ dmaxx : For example the Submission Form: English only
[19:53:56] @ azzurro : dmaxx - I keep track of the things posted which should be added to the goals - objectives - targets to get a fuller list
[19:54:09] @ dmaxx : Otherwise there could be a conflict between mod comments and infrastructure
[19:54:10] @ azzurro : so I'll include it there as well
[19:54:22] @ dmaxx : azzurro: great! Cheers!
[19:55:41] @ hmvh : Looks good to me.
[19:56:15] @ dmaxx : Other things from the VISION that needs discussion?
[19:56:58] @ hmvh : Looking...
[19:57:10] @ azzurro : maybe we can do some brainstorming about more goals objectives and targets??
[19:58:00] @ Kergillian : Not the submission form but the interface
[19:58:28] @ Kergillian : Like on our 'My Discogs' type page, the headers can be translated
[19:58:33] @ Kergillian : that sort of thing
[19:58:57] @ Kergillian : the actual submission page and process should remain in one language to avoid confusion, as you said
[19:59:07] @ dmaxx : Yes
[19:59:21] @ dmaxx : Site: multilagual / DB: English
[19:59:21] @ Kergillian : which is why I said that we should make sure in any rules/tutorial translation that the terms are clearly trasnlate
[19:59:25] @ Kergillian : translated
[19:59:40] @ hmvh : Is there a "complete vision" visible somewhere?
[19:59:49] @ dmaxx : I think "Site: multilagual / DB: English" says it all
[20:00:08] @ dmaxx : hmvh: I was looking for that too
[20:00:09] @ hmvh : Site: multilagual / DB: English" <--- lekker!
[20:01:05] @ hmvh : PS: Have about 15 minutes left tonight.
[20:03:18] tony.lee has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:03
[20:03:37] @ dmaxx : hmvh: ouch Sad
[20:03:44] @ dmaxx : Hi tony.lee
[20:04:37] @ azzurro : ho tony
[20:04:39] tony.lee : Just here as a silent observer for the first time.May remain for 10mins or till the end?
[20:04:42] @ azzurro : *hi
[20:05:05] @ Kergillian : so, aside from the language decision, what were you specifically looking at, guys?
[20:05:29] @ Kergillian : I think it's time we finalize the sub-committees and start meeting in those, smaller groups
[20:06:02] @ dmaxx : azzurro: cheers for the update post
[20:06:18] @ dmaxx : tony.lee, you may stay as long as you want
[20:06:50] @ dmaxx : You will automatically be put out of the channel after 13 minutes of inactivity, but feel free to re-join at all time
[20:07:11] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: very good
[20:07:14] @ azzurro : sub-committees: anyone heard preferences from lazzlo_nibble, little_alien or MR_E??
[20:07:29] @ dmaxx : I was thinking of organising seperate chat sessions for those SubCommittees
[20:07:33] @ Kergillian : not yet, AFAIK
[20:07:40] @ Kergillian : maybe we should PM them?
[20:07:43] tony.lee : Thankyou (opps silence broken) and thanks for the warning I will keep that in mind.
[20:07:50] @ dmaxx : lazzlo: no / little_alien: sometimes on the forums / MR_E: nothing
[20:08:05] @ Kergillian : also - with regard to the image/submission flagging that was posted in the forums
[20:08:12] @ Kergillian : I have an idea about that
[20:08:36] @ dmaxx : That has been discussed here, but feel free to make your addition
[20:08:39] @ Kergillian : first off, we should have something in the preferences that allows us to see EVERYTHING on the site
[20:08:55] @ Kergillian : so that people who don't care can click in their prefs to turn off all warnings
[20:08:56] @ dmaxx : Why would someone don't want to see everything?
[20:09:15] @ dmaxx : I think a warning on release-basis is better
[20:09:31] @ hmvh : @dmaxx - https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/4-13-08-agenda-very-rouch-draft-of-document-in-progress-t190.htm is what I was looking for. Can we get this worded nicely...
[20:09:33] @ Kergillian : no, no
[20:09:57] @ Kergillian : if we have warning images on certain releases, we should have a way to turn them off as well
[20:10:05] @ hmvh : ...and made available for all SC members to approve soonest? No doubt there will be a few tweaks as time goes by.
[20:10:10] @ azzurro : I think kerg means that users should be able to swithc warnings on or off by preference?
[20:10:16] @ azzurro : *switch
[20:10:19] @ Kergillian : yah
[20:10:22] @ Kergillian : exactly
[20:10:23] @ dmaxx : hmvh: about the languages worded nicely? sure let's go
[20:10:27] @ hmvh : What sort of warnings, kerg?
[20:10:31] @ Kergillian : and I think we should have a catchall flag - something like 'this release contains material that aye be offensive to some'
[20:10:40] @ Kergillian : that MAY be..
[20:11:07] @ dmaxx : "This release may be found offensive by some users" kinda warning
[20:11:15] @ hmvh : @dmaxx: Yes, that and pusha's post (probably reworded by deejsasqi)
[20:11:37] @ dmaxx : OK
[20:11:44] @ Kergillian : hmvh: that agenda should be put off, IMO - each subcommittee needs to form their own agenda
[20:11:53] @ dmaxx : Let's do this
[20:11:54] @ Kergillian : dmaxx: yah
[20:11:57] @ hmvh : What would be offensive if not the images... did you mean to include text by way of track listing / song names?
[20:12:00] @ Kergillian : we just need one warning
[20:12:22] @ dmaxx : Offensive in it's entity?
[20:12:51] @ hmvh : @kerg: No, this is the cornerstone I was thinking of.
[20:13:01] @ Kergillian : hmvh: any release that may have something that is extreme - be it racism, graphic violence (like disembowelment or suicide shots), or extreme porn (like Vrgin Killers)
[20:13:06] @ dmaxx : Or possibly only with _elements_ that may be offensive
[20:13:25] @ dmaxx : As Kergillian sayd
[20:13:30] @ hmvh : Images, therefore? We have the warning image that was decided on before you came.
[20:13:36] @ Kergillian : I mean we don't need to go overboard (though it may be useful to have a disclaimer somewhere)
[20:13:45] @ Kergillian : Not just images - track titles as well
[20:13:55] @ Kergillian : we should try and be child-friendly if possible
[20:14:11] @ Kergillian : and have the ability to turn it off for regular users who don't care
[20:14:55] @ Kergillian : hmvh: that agenda is a central part of the Vision subcommittee's existence
[20:15:13] @ Kergillian : except for a few aspects for the legal team
[20:15:28] @ Kergillian : to have 3 of us word it is not useful, IMO
[20:15:38] @ Kergillian : anything that integral to the site needs more input
[20:15:54] @ hmvh : Add to "DdB will never engage in nor support the distribution of illegal file sharing activities, nor will we deny and obfusciate the knowledge of recordings made available without the copyright holder's consent."
[20:16:14] @ Kergillian : I mean, I'd be happy to hammer it all out with you two (you know me - I'm stubborn so everything I think is right;) but it
[20:16:28] @ Kergillian : is too important for 3 of 11 to decide, IMO
[20:16:41] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: so you think it should be done by the subcommittees?
[20:17:06] @ Kergillian : yah - the vision subcommittee needs to decide the exact vision of the site itself
[20:17:21] @ hmvh : ... something like "we are aware that some releases may contain material by way of album art or song titles taht are offensive to some... " you get the idea.
[20:17:22] @ Kergillian : and the legal/financial team needs to hammer out the exact legality issues and how to deal with them
[20:17:27] @ Kergillian : that's what subcommittees are for
[20:17:27] @ dmaxx : hmvh, what's your thought about it?
[20:17:28] @ hmvh : Sorry guys, I have to shoot.
[20:17:46] @ Kergillian : which is why I said we need to finalize the subcommittees and get mettings going
[20:17:49] @ hmvh : SOrry, dmaxx - my thoughts on..?
[20:18:00] @ Kergillian : and subcommittees meetings need as full attendance as possible
[20:18:09] @ dmaxx : letting the subcommittees re-word the vision
[20:18:16] @ dmaxx : Instead of us
[20:18:42] @ dmaxx : Maybe we should focus on letting the subcommittees run ASAP
[20:18:50] @ hmvh : Yes... sounds reasonable, I'll go along with that.
[20:19:10] @ hmvh : Now, before I must go: Please, really, we do need a newsletter ASAP.
[20:19:17] @ hmvh : I'm outta here.
[20:19:24] hmvh is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:19
[20:19:28] @ dmaxx : Most important thing IMO is: how and when will decisions be taken by subSCs?
[20:19:29] @ azzurro : see ya
[20:19:39] @ dmaxx : Newsletter will be sent tomorrow
[20:19:49] @ Kergillian : this is how subcommittees tend to work:
[20:20:00] @ Kergillian : they are focus groups that come up with finalized plans
[20:20:27] @ Kergillian : which are then sent to the overall committees with reccomendation for implementation
[20:20:35] @ Kergillian : which the overall committees then vote on
[20:20:36] @ dmaxx : Y
[20:20:47] @ Kergillian : so we get the subcoms to hammer out the details
[20:20:56] @ Kergillian : then we can put it to a vote - public poll is easiest
[20:21:17] @ dmaxx : So no chatsessions?
[20:21:28] @ azzurro : agreed, subcoms compose, public or SC votes
[20:21:43] @ Kergillian : subcoms have thewir own chats
[20:21:44] @ azzurro : subcoms chatsessions seems sufficient to me
[20:21:46] @ Kergillian : their own
[20:22:09] @ dmaxx : Do we decide when? Or let them decide?
[20:22:17] @ Kergillian : so, the Vision committee - which is a subcom whose entire existence is to create the vision for the site and hammer out fine details - will put together proposals
[20:22:27] @ Kergillian : and then put those proposals up for public vote
[20:22:36] @ Kergillian : public meaning the entire steering comittee
[20:22:44] tony.lee has been disconnected the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:22 (session timeout)
[20:22:55] @ Kergillian : and if 2/3rds of the steering committee agrees, the proposals are implemented
[20:23:06] @ dmaxx : Y
[20:23:11] @ Kergillian : and each subcom has to decide their own schedule for chatting
[20:23:18] @ dmaxx : Good

[20:23:20] @ Kergillian : based on their own scheds
[20:23:33] @ Kergillian : and we need to limit the subcoms to 4 or 5 people max
[20:23:36] tony.lee has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:23
[20:23:42] @ Kergillian : to ensure full attendance
[20:24:35] @ dmaxx : I agree with everything
[20:24:42] @ Kergillian : and we also need to make sure ALL members of the SC - esp. Laszlo, Alien and Mr_E - are on board. If they cannot for some reason keep at LEAST semi-regular involvement then they have to bow out to someone who can
[20:24:42] @ dmaxx : Maybe we can open up a new topic
[20:24:50] @ dmaxx : To place all those instructions
[20:24:57] @ Kergillian : we're finally moving forward with some progress, but we need more participation.
[20:25:02] @ Kergillian : agreed.
[20:25:11] @ Kergillian : (agreed on the new topic, that is
[20:25:18] @ dmaxx : New topic: me or you?
[20:25:25] @ Kergillian : actually - I have an idea, dmaxx
[20:25:42] @ Kergillian : we need to restructure the forums, IMO
[20:25:46] @ Kergillian : if possible
[20:26:10] @ dmaxx : I'm listening
[20:26:17] @ Kergillian : in the discographyDB folder, we need three subheaders only - there are too many now
[20:26:28] @ Kergillian : General Discussion
[20:26:32] @ Kergillian : Steering Committee
[20:26:33] @ Kergillian : Other
[20:26:48] @ Kergillian : move all of the numbered subheaders into the general discussion
[20:27:02] @ Kergillian : move the steering committee private and public under the SC
[20:27:10] @ Kergillian : and anything else can be moved to other
[20:27:26] @ Kergillian : so that we only see 3 subheaders when we log onto the main page
[20:27:27] @ dmaxx : Hmmm... makes sense
[20:27:59] @ dmaxx : I suggest you post it here: https://discogs.actieforum.com/about-f1/new-dbase-forum-structure-t49.htm And ask the community's blessing as it is quite a big change
[20:28:04] @ dmaxx : If you want I'll do the post
[20:28:10] @ Kergillian : then, when we click on SC and go into it, we see 'Steering Comittee - Main', 'Steering Committee - Public', 'Subcommittees'
[20:29:34] @ dmaxx : Yes
[20:29:50] @ dmaxx : And Subcommittees devided into: Vision, Tech, BFL?
[20:30:23] @ Kergillian : we don't need to - we can just add the relevant header to the threads to separate them
[20:30:31] @ Kergillian : we don't want TOO many layers
[20:30:41] @ Kergillian : so the threads would be:
[20:30:45] @ dmaxx : Good
[20:30:50] @ dmaxx : I'm making a draft
[20:30:56] @ Kergillian : [VIS] Poll For The Latest Proposal
[20:31:05] @ dmaxx : Of the new structure, will give you the link when finished
[20:31:05] @ Kergillian : [TECH] INterface Issues
[20:31:17] @ Kergillian : [BFL] Nazi Or NOt?
[20:31:24] @ Kergillian : etc etc etc
[20:31:35] @ Kergillian : ok
[20:32:15] @ Kergillian : maybe make it into a poll to quickly decide on it - simple Do we change it? Yes/NO
[20:33:18] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/about-f1/new-dbase-forum-structure-t49.htm#5005
[20:33:24] @ dmaxx : I really like it a lot
[20:34:06] @ azzurro : looks good to me as well
[20:34:47] @ Kergillian : yah perfect
[20:34:54] @ dmaxx : Open seperate topic with poll? Or keep it there?
[20:35:00] @ Kergillian : only thing: let's move the Discography stuff to the top
[20:35:18] @ Kergillian : +ABOUT / +DISCOGRAPHY / +DISCOGS / +CHAT
[20:35:24] @ Kergillian : keep them in order of importance
[20:35:31] @ dmaxx : I'm not sure, people would continually have to scroll to get to those 1st level forums
[20:35:36] @ dmaxx : azzurro, your thought?
[20:35:52] @ dmaxx : In fact it does make sense
[20:36:08] @ Kergillian : can you not make them openable and closable?
[20:36:10] @ dmaxx : and Discography: + SC , then + General
[20:36:14] @ azzurro : I'ld place the DDB things on top
[20:36:19] @ dmaxx : Good
[20:36:25] quisquilia has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:36
[20:36:26] @ dmaxx : I'll adjust the draft
[20:36:33] @ dmaxx : Hi quisquilla
[20:36:34] @ Kergillian : so that you only have the folders and have to click on them to see the sub-folders?
[20:36:40] @ dmaxx : We are discussing a new forum structure
[20:36:40] @ quisquilia : hi again
[20:36:42] @ azzurro : Hi Q, welcome back
[20:36:59] @ dmaxx : See https://discogs.actieforum.com/about-f1/new-dbase-forum-structure-t49.htm#5005
[20:37:16] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: openable/closable: impossible, sorry
[20:37:25] @ Kergillian : damn
[20:38:16] @ Kergillian : I still do think that the db stff needs to go first as it's more important
[20:38:33] @ Kergillian : do you guys think that we should have the SC stuff on top or under the db-general stuff?
[20:38:40] @ dmaxx : Yes I agree now, you convinced me
[20:38:56] @ dmaxx : DRAFT changed: https://discogs.actieforum.com/about-f1/new-dbase-forum-structure-t49.htm#5005
[20:39:12] @ dmaxx : Only point of discussion remaining: SC ahead of GENERAL, or otherwise?
[20:39:44] tony.lee has been disconnected the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:39 (session timeout)
[20:39:48] @ azzurro : I'ld say general on top, it's important to everyone
[20:39:53] tony.lee has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:39
[20:40:05] @ Kergillian : fair enough
[20:40:15] @ dmaxx : Ok. Kergillian, quisquilla: your thoughts?
[20:40:32] @ Kergillian : my only argument would be that SC is also important to everyone because it is the defining info of the new db
[20:40:46] @ Kergillian : and is being posted in a lot more often right now
[20:41:14] @ dmaxx : + it's on top now too, and we don't want to make the change too drastic imo
[20:42:05] @ azzurro : I'll be away for a couple of minutes... need to restart my computer.. some things are goingbezerk here
[20:42:30] @ dmaxx : OK
[20:42:59] @ azzurro : won't be away at second sight.. it's just msn who's is out for now
[20:44:42] @ dmaxx : Good Smile
[20:44:54] @ dmaxx : I'd personally say: SC up
[20:45:04] @ dmaxx : As the most important decisions are being taken there
[20:45:46] @ quisquilia : ok, have read all here in chat
[20:45:58] @ quisquilia : I'm ok with new forum structure
[20:46:25] @ quisquilia : Kerg & me have to discuss the warning issue in the Vis sub group though
[20:46:43] @ quisquilia : not to happy with a warning for titles etc
[20:47:33] @ Kergillian : ok
[20:47:35] @ dmaxx : OK, that's for the VIS group indeed
[20:47:43] @ Kergillian : it's definitely something that is up for discussion
[20:47:47] @ Kergillian : and not set in stone
[20:48:29] @ dmaxx : Fine by me
[20:49:10] @ Kergillian : I do think it would be useful to have a PG version for those who don't want (or don't want their kids) to view the hardcore stuff
[20:49:36] @ Kergillian : I mean, some of the covers and artwork especially are rather nauseating (as a certain Discogs forum thread highlighted;)
[20:49:59] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: thanks for the quick forum post
[20:50:15] @ Kergillian : should we put it up to vote asap? MAybe have a 3-day or 4-day vote?
[20:51:09] @ dmaxx : Good
[20:51:40] @ azzurro : OK
[20:53:27] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/about-f1/new-forum-structure-t236.htm#5006
[20:53:32] @ dmaxx : post 5005 will be removed
[20:54:24] @ quisquilia : strange, I just was booted from the chat & entire site, couldn't post, nothing
[20:54:38] @ quisquilia : well, back to normal
[20:55:13] tony.lee has been disconnected the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:55 (session timeout)
[20:55:25] tony.lee has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 20:55
[20:55:36] @ Kergillian : voted
[20:56:20] @ Kergillian : on to the subcommittees - what do you guys think about a cap of 4 or 5 members per subcom?
[20:56:34] @ quisquilia : Y-voted
[20:57:12] @ dmaxx : Y: 5 / N: 0
[20:57:14] @ dmaxx : nice start
[20:57:21] @ azzurro : voted
[20:57:22] @ Kergillian : indeed Smile
[20:57:31] @ quisquilia : @ Kerg: Fine with me, with an additional number of "experts" (as many as needed for the issues at hand)
[20:57:31] @ Kergillian : I don't think we'll see much opposition to this
[20:57:37] @ Kergillian : (though you never know...)
[20:57:41] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: I completely agree, 4 to 5 to keep it managable
[20:58:14] @ quisquilia : "expert" in the sense used by hmvh
[20:58:17] @ dmaxx : Should the "Subcommittee" forum be opened for everyone to post? Or subC members only?
[20:59:03] @ Kergillian : everyone
[20:59:06] @ quisquilia : open for everyone to READ would be perfect
[20:59:07] @ azzurro : maybe same as the main SC forum
[20:59:22] @ Kergillian : well there's 2 possibilities
[20:59:32] tony.lee : Agree with azzurro
[20:59:43] @ Kergillian : nm - azurro is correct
[21:00:05] @ Kergillian : subcom should be viewable by public but writable by all SC members'
[21:00:15] @ dmaxx : OK
[21:00:27] @ quisquilia : ^^
[21:00:34] @ dmaxx : So we need a clear list of who's in
[21:00:40] @ Kergillian : yah
[21:00:58] @ Kergillian : where's the current temporary list?
[21:00:59] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/sc-mission-statement-and-sub-groups-t205.htm
[21:01:06] @ dmaxx : Needs update with confirmed members
[21:01:09] @ quisquilia : well, we had one (linked in the initial half hour of this chat session)
[21:01:21] @ quisquilia : ah nevermin
[21:01:40] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/5-technical-database-format-and-structure-f9/tech-calling-all-coders-can-we-do-it-t206.htm
[21:02:22] @ azzurro : just posted a per-group list
[21:02:30] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/sc-mission-statement-and-sub-groups-t205.htm#5009
[21:02:33] @ dmaxx : Great
[21:02:35] @ azzurro : https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/sc-mission-statement-and-sub-groups-t205.htm#5009
[21:02:36] @ dmaxx : Cheers.
[21:02:41] @ dmaxx : Are those confirmed members?
[21:03:06] tony.lee : Goota go, Saturday night here and I just got an invite out.
[21:03:12] @ azzurro : based on deejsasqui's list
[21:03:27] @ azzurro : only dropped the unknowns
[21:03:29] @ dmaxx : Vision group is full
[21:03:33] tony.lee : interesting ideas guys, see yah....
[21:03:37] @ dmaxx : tony.lee: bye
[21:03:43] @ Kergillian : later t_l
[21:03:48] @ dmaxx : Tech group needs attention
[21:03:48] @ quisquilia : Have fun, Tony!
[21:03:51] @ azzurro : see ya tony, enjoy
[21:04:00] @ Kergillian : ok, this is what I suggest - lmk what you guys think
[21:04:07] tony.lee is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 21:04
[21:04:23] @ dmaxx : I'll invite pano to become a BFL
[21:04:35] @ Kergillian : we post a thread with those groupings
[21:04:35] @ dmaxx : All agree on that?
[21:04:53] @ Kergillian : I disagree dmaxx - he wasn't voted as a SC member
[21:04:56] @ quisquilia : the tech group needs invitations to nonSC people: experts
[21:05:12] @ Kergillian : sure
[21:05:20] @ Kergillian : but let the subcom group decide that
[21:05:22] @ quisquilia : I agree dmaxx, pano as expert
[21:05:38] @ dmaxx : pano is a real expert, had contact with him
[21:05:43] @ Kergillian : ok
[21:05:46] @ dmaxx : lawyer and accountant
[21:05:48] @ Kergillian : then have him join the chats
[21:06:00] @ Kergillian : but not as an actual group member
[21:06:06] @ dmaxx : Once we have the subcommittees running, I'll ask him to join
[21:06:11] @ Kergillian : as an outside consultant so to speak
[21:06:17] @ Kergillian : -nods-
[21:06:20] @ quisquilia : well, we're half of the BFL group, so BFL has (almost) decided
[21:06:21] @ dmaxx : Also fine
[21:06:25] @ Kergillian : just don't give him SC posting privileges
[21:06:33] @ dmaxx : True! Very Happy
[21:06:50] @ Kergillian : because we don't want to veer from our mandate
[21:07:00] @ Kergillian : back to my idea:
[21:07:06] @ dmaxx : He will be able to post in SUBC
[21:07:08] @ dmaxx : Not general
[21:07:08] @ Kergillian : let's post a list of the groups
[21:07:12] @ dmaxx : General remains closed
[21:07:19] @ Kergillian : ok
[21:07:39] @ quisquilia : agree with dmaxx

[21:07:54] @ Kergillian : we post a thread of the groups and send a PM to all SC members telling them to post if they disagree
[21:08:05] @ azzurro : dmaxx - can you create another posters groups with limited posting privileges for the "experts"
[21:08:05] @ Kergillian : and then we can finalize them
[21:08:15] @ quisquilia : OT: But if the missing SC member don't show up soon, he should become SC member
[21:08:25] @ Kergillian : @azzurro: is that really necessary
[21:08:40] @ Kergillian : @quis: yah, that's what I was about to say
[21:08:48] @ dmaxx : azzurro: isn't that the SUBCOM group?
[21:08:52] @ dmaxx : Closed and for experts
[21:09:05] @ Kergillian : if after the thread goes up and the PM goes out
[21:09:08] @ azzurro : no, i mean for guys like pano
[21:09:10] @ Kergillian : people don't respond
[21:09:20] @ Kergillian : then they are dropped from the SC
[21:09:40] @ dmaxx : Maybe set auto-pruning on for SC
[21:09:45] @ Kergillian : Because I understand some people have a lot on their plates
[21:09:48] @ dmaxx : Set to 2 weeks or something
[21:09:59] @ Kergillian : ut we are on a time limit and cannot be constrained by that
[21:10:01] @ quisquilia : azzurro - pano = expert (and hopefully agrees to be in BFL sub group)
[21:10:42] @ quisquilia : ok, so we have:
[21:10:45] @ azzurro : Quis - I know, though I thought initially only SC members were in subcomms
[21:10:53] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: one thing I thought of - do we want to MSG all members about the forum poll?
[21:10:59] @ quisquilia : SC members w/ posting access in all chats
[21:11:23] @ Kergillian : @azzurro: only SC members are in subcoms. But a subcom reserves the right to ask for outside experts to help out
[21:11:30] @ quisquilia : experts w/ posting access in their respective sub group chat
[21:11:51] @ quisquilia : the general public w/ no posting access but reading all stuff
[21:11:59] @ dmaxx : Wait, we need to make smthing clear here
[21:12:00] @ quisquilia : alright?
[21:12:10] @ Kergillian : one thing I want to be made clear though - experts should be asked to take part but MUST NOT HAVE ANY SC VOTING PRIVILEGES
[21:12:11] @ dmaxx : Committee: 11 members, closed group
[21:12:18] @ dmaxx : Subcommittee: SC members only?
[21:12:23] @ Kergillian : that includes subcom votes
[21:12:30] @ dmaxx : Subcom doesn't vote
[21:12:38] @ dmaxx : Only proposed stuff for the SC to vote
[21:12:57] @ Kergillian : yah, but subcoms create proposals to send to the SC
[21:13:01] @ quisquilia : ok
[21:13:06] @ Kergillian : and experts should not have any final say in that
[21:13:07] @ dmaxx : subcommittees and committee should be kept apart
[21:13:32] @ Kergillian : agreed
[21:13:34] @ quisquilia : Yeah, dmaxx, I was just talking about chat / posting access
[21:13:48] @ quisquilia : Voting is rserved for SCers
[21:13:49] @ dmaxx : Yes
[21:14:00] @ quisquilia : in the General SC forum
[21:14:00] @ dmaxx : Voting in subcommittees?
[21:14:11] @ dmaxx : Ok, now I get it
[21:14:16] @ dmaxx : And I completely agree
[21:14:23] @ quisquilia : in sub coms people have to reach consensus / majority in favour
[21:14:26] @ dmaxx : I can disable polls in subc. forum even
[21:14:31] @ dmaxx : If wanted
[21:14:52] @ quisquilia : and then forward proposal to SC
[21:14:59] @ quisquilia : which then votes
[21:15:14] @ dmaxx : Otherwise, every subcommittee member, regardless of his group, would be able to vote on every poll
[21:15:30] @ quisquilia : @ dmaxx, dunno, nice instrument, MUST NOT be used over the top, though
[21:15:31] @ dmaxx : quisquilla: agreed
[21:15:48] @ quisquilia : @ dmaxx, ok, understand, THEN disable
[21:15:51] @ dmaxx : It's a tricky situation
[21:15:55] @ dmaxx : Ok
[21:16:00] @ dmaxx : /°
[21:16:02] @ dmaxx : Smile
[21:16:15] @ quisquilia : kerg?
[21:16:20] @ dmaxx : Maybe we can make it clear in a topic what we just discussed
[21:16:57] @ quisquilia : yes, but we need the newsletter to keep oversight
[21:17:12] @ quisquilia : I'm getting lost in all the topics by now
[21:17:13] @ dmaxx : I'll need to adjust it a bit
[21:17:16] @ dmaxx : Will do this later
[21:17:32] @ quisquilia : and for nonSC ppl that's gotta be even worse
[21:17:35] @ dmaxx : I'm going to open a topic to summarize what subc are and do, is that ok?
[21:17:47] @ quisquilia : yes
[21:17:58] @ azzurro : dmaxx - Y
[21:19:46] @ dmaxx : "very subcommittee has it's own unique members. Nobody can be a member of two subcommittees at once."
[21:19:47] @ dmaxx : Good?
[21:19:57] @ dmaxx : very -> Every
[21:20:11] @ quisquilia : No
[21:20:19] @ Kergillian : sorry - had to change laundry
[21:20:42] @ azzurro : I thought we decided to have some overlap in subcomss
[21:20:56] @ quisquilia : Bridging ppl (last week) need to be in two groups
[21:21:28] @ quisquilia : ^^azzurro said it better
[21:21:33] @ Kergillian : IMO we only need one bridge
[21:21:48] @ Kergillian : we have 11 peopl and 3 committees
[21:22:01] @ Kergillian : we should ideally have 4/4/4
[21:22:11] @ Kergillian : but because Vision is so jammed up make it 5/4/4
[21:22:28] @ Kergillian : with one person crossing over either to all 3 or two people crossing over once
[21:22:36] @ Kergillian : 2 people crossing over once each
[21:22:38] @ quisquilia : and _whom_ do you ant to remove from VIS, kerg?
[21:22:55] @ Kergillian : we should ask for a volunteer to begin with
[21:23:09] @ quisquilia : last week we discussed one head vs overlapping and agreed on overlapping
[21:23:09] @ Kergillian : and if nobody volunteers to move over, then we will vote on it
[21:23:33] @ Kergillian : because 6 people is too many
[21:23:40] @ quisquilia : I fail to see how that would make sense
[21:23:48] @ Kergillian : we need smaller groups to be able meet regularly and find schedules that fit everyone
[21:23:59] @ Kergillian : the more people you add the harder it is to get full meetings
[21:24:01] @ quisquilia : you can of course vote to put XX into TECH
[21:24:08] @ Kergillian : and we need full meetings
[21:24:22] @ quisquilia : but if XX has no idea about TECH or is not interested
[21:24:22] @ Kergillian : yes. we need more people in TECH.
[21:24:34] @ Kergillian : hell, if nobody wants to go, move me.
[21:24:37] @ quisquilia : THEN it will not work
[21:24:59] @ Kergillian : I was volunteering to be the 'bridge' anyhow
[21:25:09] @ quisquilia : No need to get angry, kerg
[21:25:16] @ Kergillian : I'm not angry at all
[21:25:22] @ quisquilia : ok
[21:25:31] @ Kergillian : (seriously - I'm not -lol-)
[21:25:44] @ Kergillian : I'm just volunteering for the move
[21:26:07] @ Kergillian : I think I'm useful for the vision, but the good of the SC is more important than my personal feelings
[21:26:12] @ quisquilia : ok, let dmaxx do the messaging of all ppl as agreed
[21:26:18] @ Kergillian : -nods-
[21:26:28] @ Kergillian : if I *do* move to Tech, who will be the bridge?
[21:26:34] @ quisquilia : and then the sub groups should be definite next week
[21:26:37] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-public-f19/subcommittees-what-are-they-and-what-do-they-do-t237.htm#5010
[21:26:40] @ dmaxx : DRAFT
[21:26:47] @ Kergillian : It has to be someone from the Vision group who is willing to work with all 3 groups
[21:26:48] @ quisquilia : I can be bridge for BFL / VIS
[21:26:49] hmvh has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 21:26
[21:26:57] @ dmaxx : Let me know if you all agree on everything within "GENERAL"
[21:27:09] @ dmaxx : Hi hmvh
[21:27:26] @ dmaxx : We are working on SubCommittees
[21:27:34] @ quisquilia : as bridge to TECH I will not be able to understand every detail
[21:27:39] @ Kergillian : @hmvh: https://discogs.actieforum.com/about-f1/new-forum-structure-t236.htm#5006
[21:28:02] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: do you want me to proofread for spelling/grammar?
[21:28:25] @ dmaxx : That would be nice
[21:28:36] @ hmvh : I'm busy catching up and will join shortly.
[21:28:44] @ Kergillian : There are three subcommittees: Vision, Tech, BFL (Bussiness, Finance, Legal). Every SSC can make it's own rules (for example: set chat dates) should be:
[21:29:05] @ Kergillian : There are three subcommittees: Vision, Tech, BFL (Business, Finance, Legal). Every SSC can make its own decisions (for example: set chat dates)
[21:29:19] @ Kergillian : decisions instead of rules
[21:29:30] @ dmaxx : Noted, thanks.
[21:29:38] @ Kergillian : because this thread IS the rules for the SubComs;)
[21:30:00] @ dmaxx : In fact it is Smile
[21:30:18] @ Kergillian : also, I think instead of 'can make its own decisions' it should be 'Every SSC makes its own decisions regarding internal matters (e.g.: chat dates, etc)
[21:30:46] @ dmaxx : Fixed
[21:30:48] @ quisquilia : agree
[21:30:48] @ Kergillian : 'internal matters' specifies that these decisions are not binding outside of the actual subcom
[21:31:15] @ quisquilia : agree w/ kerg
[21:31:31] @ dmaxx : What should I change then?
[21:32:22] @ Kergillian : There are three subcommittees: Vision, Tech, BFL (Bussiness, Finance, Legal). Every SSC makes its own decisions regarding internal matters (e.g.: chat dates, etc).
[21:32:34] @ quisquilia : "Every SSC makes its own decisions regarding internal matters (e.g.: chat dates, etc)" looks good
[21:32:34] @ Kergillian : is that ok?
[21:32:42] @ quisquilia : yes
[21:32:53] @ Kergillian : oh, sorry - Bussiness = Business
[21:33:03] @ Kergillian : (I copied the wrong one -lol-)
[21:33:11] @ dmaxx : All updated
[21:33:37] @ Kergillian : perfect. 2nd line is unclear
[21:33:41] @ Kergillian : I would change it to:
[21:33:41] @ dmaxx : Members: 5/4/4
[21:34:00] @ dmaxx : With one bridge member
[21:34:07] @ dmaxx : (included)
[21:34:27] @ Kergillian : Every SC member must take part in at least one Subcommittee. Outside experts may be asked to consult in the SSCs but will not gain any voting privileges.
[21:34:34] @ azzurro : yes, ahd to read that line twice to understand it
[21:35:01] @ dmaxx : Outside experts may be asked to consult in the SSCs == made member?
[21:35:09] @ Kergillian : no, consult
[21:35:10] @ azzurro : kerg - looks good
[21:35:13] @ quisquilia : Yes, 2nd line: Each SSC has an own forum or all share one?
[21:35:19] @ Kergillian : they're not 'official' members.
[21:35:40] @ Kergillian : I think that using prefixes is OK - I don't think we need separate forujs
[21:35:43] @ Kergillian : separate forums
[21:35:54] @ dmaxx : 'All SSCs all share the same forum.'
[21:36:01] @ Kergillian : My reasoning is that we want to reduce the homepage as much as possible, and adding more subforums adds clutter
[21:36:17] @ dmaxx : Kergillian: if they are not official members, the forum should be open for everyone to post
[21:36:20] @ quisquilia : ok
[21:36:43] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: I'm not sure I understand
[21:36:48] @ dmaxx : I'd like experts to become SSC members
[21:36:51] @ quisquilia : well, just call them consultants with specific posting access in the ssc forum. period
[21:37:03] @ Kergillian : they are outside consultants being asked to help take part in the building process
[21:37:06] @ dmaxx : Why not make them members at once?
[21:37:17] @ Kergillian : they cannot become members because they are not voted SC members
[21:37:21] @ azzurro : that's why I asked a while ago if it was possible to add a ne wgroup for these experts with their own privileges
[21:37:29] @ dmaxx : SSC members I mean
[21:37:37] @ dmaxx : Not SC members, that group is closed
[21:37:40] @ Kergillian : I know
[21:37:56] @ Kergillian : but they cannot be SSC members, because they are not SC members
[21:38:14] @ Kergillian : we are asking people to help out but they cannot make any binding decisions
[21:38:17] @ quisquilia : yes, three types of users: SC members, SSC members (consultants), general public
[21:38:20] @ Kergillian : they do not vote within or without
[21:38:21] @ dmaxx : So SSC consists out of SC members only? Fine for me
[21:38:25] little_alien has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 21:38
[21:38:35] @ little_alien : sorry I'm late
[21:38:38] @ dmaxx : Hi little_alien
[21:38:48] @ little_alien : hello
[21:38:54] @ quisquilia : membership = posting access : YES
[21:38:57] @ Kergillian : that's why I suggested: Every SC member must take part in at least one Subcommittee. Outside experts may be asked to consult in the SSCs but will not gain any voting privileges.
[21:39:12] @ quisquilia : membership = SC voting : NO
[21:39:17] @ Kergillian : so that they can post in discussions but are not actual members
[21:39:33] @ dmaxx : I think we are confusing SC and SSC here
[21:39:38] @ Kergillian : so we allow experts to post in the SSC forum
[21:39:43] @ dmaxx : It are two totally seperate things

[21:39:47] @ Kergillian : but that is the only privilege they gain
[21:40:04] @ dmaxx : Ok, but there won't be votings in the SSC
[21:40:06] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: no, they're not entirely separate
[21:40:18] @ Kergillian : SSCs are a subgroup of the SC
[21:40:36] @ Kergillian : and there won't be POLLS in the SSCs but there will be decision making
[21:40:42] @ Kergillian : which is the same as voting
[21:40:44] @ dmaxx : OK
[21:40:52] @ Kergillian : and experts can add their 2 cents but get no final say
[21:40:53] @ dmaxx : I get it, that's OK for me
[21:41:01] @ quisquilia : ok, guys, this is getting totally out of proportion & out of hand
[21:41:30] @ hmvh : Outside experts will be asked to consult in the SSC (based on the their offered areas of expertise) on a voluntary basis. Their opinions will be taken into consideration but they have no voting power that exceeds that of the ent
[21:41:32] @ Kergillian : @quis: we just want to be clear to everyone in the public that these people are not getting any decision-making privileges
[21:41:34] @ quisquilia : experts are MEMBERS of their SSCs in that regard that they can POST and DECIDE within that SSC
[21:41:53] @ quisquilia : but they CANNOT decide in SC
[21:41:54] @ little_alien : ah man. I wish I still would feel like coding after a week at work...
[21:42:03] @ dmaxx : In fact I share quisquilla's opinion
[21:42:08] @ Kergillian : @quis: POST yes, DECIDE no
[21:42:14] @ hmvh : ^As Q said.
[21:42:21] @ little_alien : Otherwise I'd have a demo ready by now...
[21:42:27] @ quisquilia : kerg, why not within the SSC?
[21:42:27] @ dmaxx : Maybe hold a poll here?
[21:42:31] @ Kergillian : experts have no decision making power in the SSCs
[21:42:41] @ quisquilia : why?
[21:42:51] @ dmaxx : Why not? It are experts + it's not binding
[21:43:00] @ hmvh : ...entire SSC or SC.
[21:43:06] @ dmaxx : The SC always has the final word
[21:43:14] @ quisquilia : right, the SC needs to voteon SSC proposals anyways
[21:43:19] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: because it's necessary for the purpose of appearances
[21:43:24] @ hmvh : The SC has the final word.
[21:43:27] @ little_alien : anyhow, for qwhat it's worth, you can add me to Tech
[21:43:29] @ Kergillian : look at it this way:
[21:43:37] @ Kergillian : little_alien: thanks Smile
[21:43:41] @ Kergillian : look at it this way:
[21:43:45] @ quisquilia : cool, thanks littl_alien!
[21:43:50] @ Kergillian : Expert X is consulting.
[21:43:52] @ dmaxx : little_alien: Cheers! Very Happy
[21:44:05] @ Kergillian : Tech SSC has to make a decision
[21:44:06] @ hmvh : @ la, we'll be friends Smile
[21:44:11] @ little_alien : at least I can take a look at things others come up with then
[21:44:21] @ Kergillian : Expert X's vote breaks the tie and the decision goes through
[21:44:33] @ azzurro : done in the list https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-f18/sc-mission-statement-and-sub-groups-t205.htm#5009
[21:44:35] @ Kergillian : Tech Proposal is sent to the SC for a vote as a result of that decision
[21:44:42] @ Kergillian : SC votes the proposal in
[21:44:44] @ little_alien : if this thing is going to come true, it better be a solidly designed data structure Wink\
[21:45:07] @ Kergillian : Therefore Expert X's opinion/vote just created something
[21:45:16] @ quisquilia : "SC votes the proposal in" = Then IT IS binding.
[21:45:27] @ Kergillian : therefore someone NOT in the SC made a decision that impacted the entire db
[21:45:32] @ little_alien : too bad lazlo_nibble has been so quiet
[21:45:38] @ quisquilia : Because the ENTIRE / MAJORITY of SC said YES
[21:45:56] @ quisquilia : kerg, I don't get your problem...
[21:45:56] @ dmaxx : I don't know Kergillian: allowing experts outside the SSC to post is making things needlessly difficult
[21:46:01] @ Kergillian : @quis: yes, but the proposal in this situation would never have even MADE it to the SC without the Expert's vote
[21:46:25] @ dmaxx : But why not include the expert in the first place? In the group?
[21:46:26] @ quisquilia : But WHAT IS the problem ?
[21:46:34] @ Kergillian : PK, let me make this simple:
[21:46:39] @ quisquilia : If the idea is crap, the SC says NO
[21:46:46] @ Kergillian : OK, let me make this simple
[21:46:57] @ quisquilia : If the idea is good, the majority of SC thinks so and says YES
[21:47:19] @ Kergillian : hold on a sec
[21:47:32] @ dmaxx : k
[21:47:35] @ Kergillian : The Steering Committee is a group of people who were voted in to come to decisions regarding the future of this db
[21:47:57] @ Kergillian : these people were given a mandate by the community as a whole and the power to see it through
[21:48:25] @ Kergillian : if the community wanted others to have this mandate and power they would have been voted for
[21:48:30] @ Kergillian : what *I'm* saying
[21:48:44] @ dmaxx : But the SSC has no actual power
[21:48:48] @ Kergillian : is that we do not want to give the APPEARANCE that we are bestowing power upon others at our whim
[21:48:50] @ quisquilia : ^^
[21:48:50] @ dmaxx : They only propose stuff
[21:48:58] @ dmaxx : So it is still democratic
[21:49:00] @ quisquilia : ^^
[21:49:01] little_alien is going to switch computer and will be right back
[21:49:07] little_alien is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 21:49
[21:49:10] @ Kergillian : the SSC is still the SC
[21:49:11] @ dmaxx : See you l_a Smile
[21:49:21] @ quisquilia : So this is about STATUS, kerg?
[21:49:27] @ hmvh : You all sound like a bunch of British politicians voting on lunch...
[21:49:28] @ Kergillian : we are splitting ourselves up to tackle different aspects of the db more easily
[21:49:39] @ Kergillian : @hmvh: this is important
[21:49:44] @ quisquilia : The final decision takes place in the SC and by SC members only
[21:49:50] @ Kergillian : because the core of this db is being open and honest
[21:50:11] @ Kergillian : @quis: you are making a differentiation that the public may not make
[21:50:30] @ Kergillian : SSCs create proposals that the SC in its entirety votes on
[21:50:35] @ quisquilia : so I don't see how a nonSC expert takng part in the decision on a sub group proposal is harmful in any way
[21:50:35] @ dmaxx : That's why I launched a topic
[21:50:38] @ dmaxx : To make it clear
[21:50:44] @ Kergillian : we're just shifting numbers, but they add up to the same equation
[21:51:02] @ dmaxx : But it's never permanent, SC decides
[21:51:05] @ Kergillian : the SSCs are STILL the SC. That's what you're not seeing.
[21:51:24] @ hmvh : May I ask a question?
[21:51:30] @ dmaxx : sure
[21:51:35] @ Kergillian : In parliamentary terms - we're delegating some of our membership to focus on a task then voting on the outcome of that task
[21:51:50] @ quisquilia : NO: SSCs are groups build up from SC and nonSC members
[21:52:23] @ dmaxx : Yes, that's the essense of SSC
[21:52:27] @ dmaxx : SC + community
[21:52:35] @ dmaxx : But experts together
[21:52:37] @ hmvh : May I ask a question?
[21:52:43] @ Kergillian : go ahead
[21:52:44] @ dmaxx : sure
[21:52:50] @ quisquilia : ^^
[21:53:23] @ hmvh : Right: Before anyone responds, let me ask my question,s summarise what's been said, and think:
[21:53:39] @ Kergillian : -nods-
[21:53:51] @ hmvh : We have an SC. Membership was decided on by poll. Democracy.
[21:54:26] @ hmvh : The SC consists of members, each experts in their own field, all of us with a similar vision and a similar mindset.
[21:54:51] @ hmvh : In order for the SC to continue to push this project thru, we break up into SSCs.
[21:55:08] @ hmvh : Each SSC consists of X amount of members, with an obligatory overlap.
[21:55:47] @ hmvh : The X members of the (S)SC decide which non SC-members to rope in as consultants, as and where...
[21:56:07] @ hmvh : ...needed, to obtain information or to complete a certain task.
[21:56:39] @ hmvh : It is up to the SSC to see to it that the task is completed. It is up to the SC to ensure each SSC completes their own tasks.
[21:57:13] @ hmvh : Are we all OK so far, I'm not quite done yet?
[21:57:24] @ Kergillian : -yah
[21:57:25] @ quisquilia : ok so far
[21:57:48] @ azzurro : yup
[21:58:02] @ hmvh : Fine. Thanks.
[21:58:11] @ dmaxx : k
[21:58:37] @ hmvh : Each SSC has the respnibility and the right to approach and rope in whatever members it needs and sees fit to get a...
[21:59:09] @ hmvh : specific task complete. Effectively a moratorium on THAT specific task, be it VIS or Tech or whatever.
[21:59:31] @ hmvh : Effectively, those in Tech are trusting those in VIS to do their job.
[22:00:22] @ hmvh : Members roped in (consultants, experts, whoever) have influence but cannot change the final decision or shape the final product.
[22:00:57] @ hmvh : Neitehr can the SSC on its own, they need to report to the SC (which they are members of) and all 11 (or whoever is present) must cast the final vote.
[22:01:25] @ hmvh : Done. Is that do-able and reasonable?
[22:01:40] little_alien has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 22:01
[22:01:53] @ dmaxx : hmvh: I agree over the whole line
[22:01:55] @ Kergillian : I have no issue
[22:01:59] @ quisquilia : Yes (def of final decision pending).
[22:02:06] @ Kergillian : the only issue I have is in nomeclature
[22:02:11] @ azzurro : agreed
[22:02:16] @ Kergillian : if I may say one thing?
[22:02:27] @ dmaxx : sure
[22:02:28] @ hmvh : All yours, kerg.
[22:02:45] @ Kergillian : (and keep in mind that this is all debate and nothing personal - I know I'm hard-headed, but I'm still not angry or anything)
[22:03:01] @ dmaxx : We aren't too
[22:03:32] @ Kergillian : if we call outside experts 'consultants' instead of 'members', then the ILLUSION is that they are not bestowed any form of SC power and are just there for their expertise
[22:03:35] @ Kergillian : BUT
[22:03:56] @ Kergillian : if we call them members then there MAY BE the ILLUSION that they actually have some form of power within the SC
[22:03:59] @ Kergillian : the entire point
[22:04:16] @ Kergillian : of my arguments is for appearances. It's not their actual capacity within the SSCS -
[22:04:20] @ Kergillian : we agree on that
[22:04:28] @ hmvh : Semantics.
[22:04:28] @ Kergillian : it's how they APPEAR to the public
[22:04:35] @ Kergillian : yes but semantics are important
[22:04:45] @ Kergillian : SOME community members will be reading this chat. Others won't
[22:04:54] @ little_alien : so we're worrying about appearance now...
[22:05:10] @ Kergillian : We want the community to know that we take their decisions and votes seriously and will not countermand their decisions
[22:05:13] @ quisquilia : So it's really about STATUS?
[22:05:28] @ little_alien : I never chose to be an sc member, I'd just as well be a consultant, it's just a title
[22:05:42] @ Kergillian : to some yes, to others no
[22:05:45] @ dmaxx : Kerg: so you fear the community think we are no democratic?
[22:05:46] @ quisquilia : Then make it clear in a post / topic that "experts" have no final say. Period.
[22:05:51] @ little_alien : I could not care less and I think a lot of others feel the same
[22:05:56] @ Kergillian : it's not about OUR status or lack thereof
[22:06:01] @ azzurro : I agree with Kerg, calling someone a member might give him (or others) a false impression of his task
[22:06:04] @ hmvh : Those that read this are welcome to apply as "consultants". I have a list of people I'd like to pool in already. Other than expertise I also expect dedication, and there is ZERO renumeration for anyone... including the S/SC memb
[22:06:16] @ dmaxx : https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-public-f19/subcommittees-what-are-they-and-what-do-they-do-t237.htm#5010
[22:06:22] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: sort of...we don't want it to look like we have the power to create new SC members
[22:06:22] @ dmaxx : Should make everything clear to everyone
[22:06:33] @ quisquilia : SSC member IS NOT the same as SC member
[22:06:42] @ Kergillian : WE kow that
[22:06:42] @ hmvh : Consultants, members, call them... experts or specialists if you'd like. Neither term is meant as an insult in any way.
[22:06:45] @ dmaxx : Yep
[22:06:46] @ Kergillian : WE know that
[22:07:02] @ Kergillian : but how the community as a whole sees it and how WE see it are not the same
[22:07:07] @ hmvh : WE know that and it is up to the SSC to ensure THEY know that.
[22:07:18] @ Kergillian : ^^exactly
[22:07:22] @ hmvh : Besides: US and THEM is ugly. We're in this together.
[22:07:25] @ quisquilia : agree with hmvh
[22:07:38] @ dmaxx : hmvh, you've said it man
[22:07:58] @ dmaxx : It's our duty to make it clear to everyone
[22:08:01] @ Kergillian : @hmvh: this is not US and THEM i terms of power or status
[22:08:04] @ dmaxx : Maybe with the newsletter
[22:08:09] @ hmvh : There's one more task force (the original term) that I'm afraid has been overlooked, and I fear it may be the most important of all.
[22:08:37] @ little_alien : and that is?
[22:08:39] @ hmvh : Fuck power. When this is all done and running I will voluntarily step down so I can spend time submitting stuff Smile
[22:08:46] @ Kergillian : BUT, there IS an US and THEM - because even though we are keeping this open, we still make vital decisions. And we have to constantly make sure that EVERYONE can keep their trust and faith in us to do so properly
[22:09:26] @ dmaxx : Kerg: absolutely. And why would SSCs undo that trust?

[22:09:30] @ Kergillian : so if that means that we call them Consultants instead of Members, does it truly hurt?
[22:09:39] @ hmvh : It's OK, Kerg ... I think we understand each other there cyclops
[22:09:40] @ dmaxx : Everything is still as democratical and transparent as ever before
[22:10:02] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: appearances are always important. How people percieve our work is VERY important.
[22:10:07] @ hmvh : My original question was...
[22:10:12] @ dmaxx : Let's call em consultants, no problem for me, but they are a fixed part of the SSCs, right?
[22:10:22] @ Kergillian : It's not just about being transparent - you have to communicate it clearly and efficiently
[22:10:30] @ dmaxx : Ok
[22:11:00] @ hmvh : We have vision, we have Tech, we have BFL... all are important.
[22:11:14] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx - they are not 'fixed' IMO. They are there as long as the SSC feels they need to be. They are asked to volunteer their expertise. It might be for only one aspect of an SSC's task, or the whole thing
[22:11:22] @ hmvh : If I were to say "What is it we want to capture? What information can be extracted from a typical release, and how much of it is based on speculation and adjustment? Cat# as is? If so, sort how on label page?" which juristiction
[22:11:23] @ Kergillian : that is up to the SSC to decide.
[22:11:45] @ hmvh : ^agree with Kerg.
[22:11:53] @ Kergillian : @hmvh: that is a mix between all 3
[22:12:04] @ Kergillian : which is why the bridges are necessary
[22:12:17] @ Kergillian : you have one VIS/TECH bridge to make sure the VIS ideas are programmable
[22:12:29] @ Kergillian : and you have one VIS/BFL bridge to ensure everything is legal and kosher
[22:12:30] @ quisquilia : However you call them (experts, consultants, ...), they are MEMBERS in their respective SSCs. Sorry, but that semantics nonsense is not helpful.
[22:13:06] @ dmaxx : They are members, but we'll call em consultants, no problem
[22:13:16] @ Kergillian : @quis: they are TEMPORARY members, not necessarily permanent. Which is why they are consultants
[22:13:31] @ dmaxx : What I like to know is: who should be able to post in the SSC forum? If you ask me: SSC members only
[22:13:44] @ quisquilia : But that was obvious from the beginning, so WHAT is this all about?
[22:13:48] @ Kergillian : ANyone who is taking part in the SSC process
[22:13:53] @ little_alien : totally unrelated, but quis, if you want to meet up in Tilburg or Eindhoven just let me know ok?
[22:13:57] @ Kergillian : should be able to post
[22:14:01] @ hmvh : Members of the site as they as the chose, consultants and experts called upon as the SSC choses. Harsh?
[22:14:03] @ dmaxx : Ok
[22:14:08] @ Kergillian : we can add 'Consultant'
[22:14:14] @ little_alien : the topic you posted has gone a bit quiet
[22:14:14] @ Kergillian : or 'Expert'
[22:14:16] @ quisquilia : @dmaxx: All respective SSC members.
[22:14:20] @ Kergillian : to them just as we have 'SC member'
[22:14:23] @ little_alien : silent
[22:14:28] @ hmvh : ^ as long as they chose...
[22:14:33] @ Kergillian : so that people can see why these people can post
[22:14:56] @ Kergillian : So can I propose a new LIne 2?
[22:14:56] @ dmaxx : Good
[22:15:01] @ dmaxx : Yes
[22:15:12] @ dmaxx : The one that's currently empty I suppose
[22:15:16] @ quisquilia : OT: little_alien - will do
[22:15:24] @ Kergillian : All Steering Committee members must take part in at least on SSC.
[22:17:09] @ Kergillian : Each SSC may decide to request the aid of a Consultant on a voluntary basis in order to share their expertise. These consultants will be able to post and take part in SSC chats, but will have no other SC or voting privileges.
[22:17:45] @ hmvh : Y
[22:17:45] @ little_alien : so far so good Kergillian Smile
[22:17:51] @ Kergillian : ^^amendment: will be able to post in the SSC subforums
[22:17:52] @ azzurro : good one kerg!
[22:18:03] @ hmvh : Y
[22:18:05] @ Kergillian : (to make it clear they can't post in the SC forums)
[22:18:24] @ quisquilia : still do not see the harm of a chosen consulting voting / deciding on a SSC issue which as proposal is forwarded to SC
[22:18:42] @ little_alien : still, I can't believe we're still discussing this...
[22:18:45] @ Kergillian : (and I'm sorry if I'm being difficult on the 'semantics' aspect, but I feel strongly about it)
[22:18:49] @ quisquilia : chose consultant
[22:19:01] @ Kergillian : little_alien: welcome to committees Smile
[22:19:18] @ little_alien : hmmz...
[22:19:19] @ quisquilia : l_a, agree
[22:19:30] @ Kergillian : @quis: they will help to make decisions, they simply won't have any official vote
[22:19:40] little_alien has been a committee member and chairman at college
[22:19:53] @ quisquilia : of course they have no vote in the SC, but WHY NOT in the SSC?
[22:20:21] @ dmaxx : I think they can
[22:20:26] @ dmaxx : Right?
[22:20:33] @ Kergillian : 'Every SSC makes its own decisions regarding internal matters'
[22:20:40] @ dmaxx : Consultant: vote in SC? NO / vote in SSC? YES
[22:20:47] @ Kergillian : how each SSC wants to handle their decision-making process is up to them
[22:20:51] @ dmaxx : inernal matters: fine
[22:20:58] @ dmaxx : Good for me
[22:21:04] @ quisquilia : dmaxx, that's what I said half an hour ago
[22:21:17] @ Kergillian : but I would STRONGLY suggest not allowing a non-SC member to have a final say in proposals
[22:21:17] @ hmvh : "decision-making process is up to them" - spot-on.
[22:21:31] @ dmaxx : Good
[22:21:35] @ dmaxx : End of discussion
[22:21:47] @ dmaxx : Now let's fix the draft
[22:21:47] @ hmvh : Each SSC still has to pass the entire SC.
[22:21:49] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: vote in SSC - decided by each SSC
[22:21:57] @ Kergillian : not auto-YES
[22:22:09] @ quisquilia : "but I would STRONGLY suggest not allowing a non-SC member to have a final say in proposals" - WHY? GIV ME A REASON.
[22:22:35] @ Kergillian : ok, this is my reasoning - as clearly as I can make it
[22:22:47] @ quisquilia : to have a say in a proposal - what is the problem?
[22:22:55] @ Kergillian : 1) SSCs are groupings of SC members to complete a task
[22:23:19] @ Kergillian : 2) the task will be sent to the SC for a vote as to whether its acceptable or not
[22:23:24] @ dmaxx : Can't we leave this discussion for the SSCs, as agreed,
[22:23:44] @ Kergillian : 3) the only reason for SSCs is that the SC is too big to handle each aspect on its own
[22:23:49] @ quisquilia : ad 1: no, they are comprised of SC members and non SC experts
[22:24:17] @ quisquilia : ad 2: yes
[22:24:30] @ Kergillian : 4) therefore, the SSCs are delegated the responsibility to speak for the entire SC when creating these proposals based on their expertise
[22:24:41] @ quisquilia : (I guess you mean: task = proposal)
[22:24:45] @ Kergillian : 5) that delegation may include asking for outside help for technical details
[22:24:55] @ quisquilia : ad 3: yes
[22:25:08] @ Kergillian : so essentially:
[22:25:31] @ Kergillian : the SSCs are the SC split up to handle more focused issues. So any decision made BY an SSC is actually made by the SC
[22:25:36] @ quisquilia : ad 4: No. Their only task is to draft up proposals fo the SC which then decides.
[22:25:39] @ Kergillian : just split up
[22:26:06] @ Kergillian : so allowing non-SC members to vote on SSC issues is allowing them to vote on SC matters
[22:26:12] @ dmaxx : "So any decision made BY an SSC is actually made by the SC". No it's not
[22:26:22] @ dmaxx : It's SC + Consultants
[22:26:29] @ quisquilia : ^^ right, dmaxx
[22:26:29] @ dmaxx : Unless agreed otherwise by the SSC
[22:26:41] @ Kergillian : but whatever - as dmaxx says, let's wait and let the SSCs decide
[22:26:53] @ dmaxx : Good
[22:26:57] little_alien sighs
[22:27:04] @ dmaxx : If we can finish https://discogs.actieforum.com/steering-committee-public-f19/subcommittees-what-are-they-and-what-do-they-do-t237.htm#5010
[22:27:08] @ dmaxx : We will have reach A LOT today
[22:27:33] @ Kergillian : OK
[22:27:36] @ Kergillian : next line:
[22:27:59] @ hmvh : We're splitting pubic hairs here but I'm fine with it.
[22:28:47] @ Kergillian : There is a separate Subcommitte subforum of the Steering Committee section. This will be visible to the public, but only SSC members and consultants may post.
[22:29:06] @ Kergillian : Sorry: This is visible to the public...
[22:29:15] @ dmaxx : Isn't this the same as "All SSCs all share the same forum. It will be readable by everyone, but only SSC members can post."
[22:29:50] @ Kergillian : yah - didn't you want it proofread?
[22:30:01] @ quisquilia : ok, I give up. The way kerg phrases stuff, he sets into stone that consultants ARE NOT members of SSCs. I disagree with that.
[22:30:03] @ dmaxx : Oh, replace, OK
[22:30:21] @ dmaxx : Where does it say that?
[22:30:27] @ dmaxx : In the current draft?
[22:31:21] @ quisquilia : "but only SSC members and consultants may post." : consultants /= SSC members
[22:31:26] @ Kergillian : @quis: if we call them consultants in one line, we have to call them that in all lines. OTherwise it will create confusion
[22:31:34] azzurro is away
[22:31:46] @ azzurro : whoops.. wrogn button
[22:31:59] @ Kergillian : the whole point is to make it clear that the people we are asking to consult are able to post
[22:32:19] @ hmvh : "request the aid of a Consultant " make "request the aid of any and all consultants of their chosing..."
[22:32:26] @ Kergillian : which is why they should also have the Consultant tag under their name
[22:32:31] @ quisquilia : just say "SC members + consultants as SSC members are allowed to post"
[22:32:52] @ Kergillian : @hmvh: how about just changing it from A consultant to consultants
[22:33:18] @ hmvh : @kerg : Also fine.
[22:33:30] @ Kergillian : 'may decide to request the aid of Consultants on a voluntary basis'
[22:34:01] @ Kergillian : @quis: how about this:
[22:34:06] @ dmaxx : Changed 3rd line
[22:34:28] @ Kergillian : This will be visible to the public, but only those involved in the SSCs may post.
[22:34:44] @ Kergillian : that eliminates the question of membership altogether
[22:34:51] @ dmaxx : Y
[22:34:58] @ quisquilia : ok
[22:35:13] @ azzurro : Y
[22:35:22] @ Kergillian : see? compromise if good! Smile
[22:35:22] @ hmvh : Y
[22:35:25] @ dmaxx : Changed 4th line
[22:35:27] @ Kergillian : is good
[22:36:00] @ quisquilia : well, the decision-making will be decided on in each SCC - so I will discuss that then
[22:36:08] @ Kergillian : @dmaxx: can we change the opening sentence as well?
[22:36:17] @ quisquilia : but ok for now
[22:36:53] @ dmaxx : Kerg: just did that Smile
[22:36:53] @ Kergillian : There is a separate Subcommitte subforum of the Steering Committee section.
[22:37:00] @ dmaxx : Is the opening sentence good now?
[22:37:09] corne_mo has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 22:37
[22:37:16] @ Kergillian : oj
[22:37:17] @ Kergillian : oh
[22:37:30] @ Kergillian : just chage it to subforum and it's fine
[22:37:46] @ quisquilia : hi c_m
[22:38:01] corne_mo : hi all, still in discussion?
[22:38:05] @ dmaxx : Changed 4th line
[22:38:15] @ Kergillian : cool thanks
[22:38:21] @ dmaxx : corne_mo: we sure are
[22:38:21] @ Kergillian : next?
[22:38:27] @ dmaxx : Yes, next Smile
[22:38:37] @ dmaxx : (brb)
[22:38:53] @ Kergillian : Every topic in the SSC subforum needs a prefix tag of [VIS], [TECH] or [BFL]
[22:39:03] @ little_alien : hello corne
[22:39:48] @ quisquilia : kerg, is ok for me
[22:40:01] @ azzurro : OK here
[22:40:17] @ azzurro : maybe combining tags when it deals with more ssc's
[22:40:45] @ dmaxx : back
[22:40:47] @ quisquilia : yes, but just as exception, azzurro
[22:40:48] @ azzurro : it = the thread topic
[22:41:01] @ Kergillian : ok how about: needs at least one prefix tag
[22:41:16] @ quisquilia : it'd be better the SSC forward questions to each other where necessary
[22:41:59] @ azzurro : quis - agreed
[22:42:01] @ quisquilia : else we get questions of the various areas easily mixed up
[22:42:22] @ azzurro : kerg - seems fine if others agree as well
[22:42:25] @ Kergillian : ^^good point
[22:42:43] @ quisquilia : and as a result the entire SC is involved again :-D
[22:43:08] @ Kergillian : ^^and that's the point of the briegs anyhow
[22:43:09] @ Kergillian : bridges
[22:43:23] @ Kergillian : to be able to deal with cross-SSC issues
[22:43:30] @ dmaxx : So that line is correct now?
[22:43:58] @ Kergillian : yah
[22:44:00] @ Kergillian : IMO
[22:44:05] @ quisquilia : dmaxx, IMO yes
[22:44:13] @ Kergillian : next?
[22:44:21] @ dmaxx : nxt
[22:44:43] @ azzurro : OK

[22:45:48] @ Kergillian : The SSCs do not have the power to make binding decisions; they exist to recommend proposals for the SC, in its entirety, to vote on.
[22:46:25] @ dmaxx : Looks good
[22:46:33] @ little_alien : Y
[22:46:36] @ azzurro : Y
[22:46:44] @ quisquilia : "draft proposals" better perhaps?
[22:47:05] @ little_alien : of course we have to trust the ssc's I'll blindly trust the BFL on legal matters
[22:47:18] @ Kergillian : -nods- ok: they exist to draft proposals...
[22:47:33] @ quisquilia : OT: good to know, l_a... heh
[22:47:52] @ Kergillian : @l_a: we'll for sure have to put a bit of blind faith into issues that are beyond our knowledge Smile
[22:47:57] @ dmaxx : sentence changed
[22:47:58] @ little_alien : yeah, I don't know anything about that sort of stuff
[22:48:03] @ quisquilia : @ kerg: ok then
[22:48:31] @ Kergillian : so all that's left is the structure?
[22:49:00] @ Kergillian : I would change it from Members to Permanent Members
[22:49:02] @ quisquilia : dmaxx, no, no: change to "they exist to draft proposals for the SC"
[22:49:06] @ dmaxx : I think it can be included with the other lines, no need to seperate "General" from "Structure"
[22:49:27] @ Kergillian : 1) quis is right (good catch!) - delete 'recommend'
[22:49:28] @ dmaxx : fixed line
[22:49:56] @ Kergillian : thx
[22:49:59] @ Kergillian : I would change it from Members to Permanent Members
[22:50:02] @ quisquilia : thx
[22:50:20] @ Kergillian : so that we can bring in consultants that would not affect the cap
[22:50:21] @ dmaxx : "SSC size"
[22:50:24] @ quisquilia : or SC members
[22:50:28] @ Kergillian : (or even SC Members)
[22:50:34] @ Kergillian : -lol- yah
[22:50:38] @ dmaxx : Good for me
[22:50:44] @ quisquilia : same minds
[22:50:46] @ Kergillian : Number of SC members per SSC:
[22:50:47] @ dmaxx : "SC members per group"
[22:51:05] @ Kergillian : -lol- yah
[22:51:09] @ Kergillian : all on the same page now ;p
[22:51:34] @ Kergillian : we agreed on 5/4/4?
[22:51:34] @ dmaxx : changed line
[22:51:39] @ quisquilia : ok, are we done?
[22:51:50] @ dmaxx : yes, it includes the bridge member
[22:51:54] @ dmaxx : 5/4/4
[22:51:55] @ Kergillian : 2 things:
[22:52:03] @ Kergillian : 1) I would change it from group to SSC
[22:52:45] @ Kergillian : 2) I would add a note at the bottom - NOTE: this includes one bridge member of both VIS and TECH, and one bridge member of both VIS and BFL
[22:52:59] @ quisquilia : [joking] How about SCSG ? [/joking]
[22:53:17] @ Kergillian : Smile
[22:53:26] corne_mo has been disconnected the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 22:53 (session timeout)
[22:53:59] @ azzurro : I agree on 5/4/4
[22:54:01] @ dmaxx : changed line, plz check
[22:54:22] @ Kergillian : awesome
[22:54:25] @ Kergillian : thanks dmaxx Smile
[22:54:29] @ dmaxx : bridge VIS - TECH is not same person as VIS - BFL ???
[22:54:32] @ quisquilia : ok
[22:54:38] @ dmaxx : two bridges?
[22:54:42] @ Kergillian : maybe, maybe not
[22:54:46] @ dmaxx : otherwise it's bridge VIS - TECH - BFL
[22:54:48] @ azzurro : "number of SC members" (or am I too picky now)
[22:54:48] @ quisquilia : no I'm VIS - BFL
[22:54:56] @ Kergillian : we have to figure that out once the SSGs are finalized
[22:55:05] @ Kergillian : it makes sense to have 2
[22:55:11] @ Kergillian : because oftime constraints
[22:55:16] @ dmaxx : "number of": added
[22:55:22] @ Kergillian : and their needs are not the same
[22:55:35] @ Kergillian : ok - I have to go - going to see Richie Havens tonight
[22:55:36] @ dmaxx : Ok
[22:55:47] @ azzurro : OK. see ya kerg
[22:55:51] @ dmaxx : I think the topic is finished
[22:55:53] @ quisquilia : bye
[22:55:55] @ dmaxx : Bye Kerg
[22:56:03] @ dmaxx : We made some nice progress today
[22:56:04] @ Kergillian : thanks to everyone for their patience with me afro
[22:56:10] @ Kergillian : yah
[22:56:12] @ dmaxx : No probs
[22:56:20] @ quisquilia : yes, I want to go out now and party, too
[22:56:28] @ Kergillian : also: don't forget to move me to TECH if you haven't already
[22:56:36] little_alien is too tired for party
[22:56:42] @ azzurro : I'll do that
[22:56:47] @ quisquilia : so, dmaxx, you're going to message all SC members this week?
[22:56:48] @ Kergillian : cheers all!
[22:56:57] @ dmaxx : last edit: removed "DRAFT***" line
[22:57:03] @ quisquilia : l_a, sleep well
[22:57:04] @ Kergillian : (and please someone get the word out on the forum vote!)
[22:57:07] @ dmaxx : message for ?
[22:57:09] @ azzurro : kerg.. before you leave
[22:57:16] @ azzurro : shoudl I mention you as bridge member
[22:57:23] @ dmaxx : I'll place the poll underneath the header
[22:57:26] @ azzurro : just checking
[22:57:26] @ little_alien : oh I'm not logging out yet
[22:57:28] @ Kergillian : me?
[22:57:34] @ quisquilia : message what SSCs are and that they need to choose one
[22:57:37] @ dmaxx : Newsletter: AFTER forum poll (otherwise the links won't be correct)
[22:57:38] @ azzurro : yup
[22:57:53] @ dmaxx : quisquilla: I'll do that
[22:58:16] @ Kergillian : It depends
[22:58:22] @ Kergillian : I think there will be too many VIS members
[22:58:31] @ Kergillian : there are currently 6
[22:58:37] @ Kergillian : and TECH is the missing link
[22:58:47] @ dmaxx : I think the VIS group is full
[22:58:48] @ Kergillian : so I don't think there's room for me at VIS
[22:58:54] @ dmaxx : TECH too empty indeed
[22:59:03] @ quisquilia : we have 3 for TECH so far, right?
[22:59:09] @ dmaxx : Yes.
[22:59:10] @ azzurro : OK, than I'll move you
[22:59:11] @ quisquilia : hmvh, kerg, l_a
[22:59:17] @ dmaxx : With the bridge = 4? Right?
[22:59:24] @ Kergillian : so move me to TECH - I have no programming expertise but I can make a lot of interface suggestions
[22:59:24] @ little_alien : we need lazlo in tech
[22:59:28] @ Kergillian : yah
[22:59:36] @ little_alien : I hope he re-surfaces
[22:59:41] @ quisquilia : yes, dmaxx
[22:59:53] @ dmaxx : Good
[23:00:00] @ dmaxx : I'll sent the message tomorrow
[23:00:17] @ Kergillian : we basically need:
[23:00:27] @ Kergillian : 5 in VIS, 3 in TECH and 3 in BFL
[23:00:33] @ azzurro : ow.. we hmvh mentioned twice as well now, both vis and tech
[23:00:36] @ Kergillian : with 2 of VIS also being in TECH and BFL
[23:00:47] @ Kergillian : that's OK
[23:00:54] @ Kergillian : if he's willing to be a bridge;)
[23:00:59] @ Kergillian : hmvh?
[23:01:24] @ quisquilia : ok, thx to you all, I'm out into a mellown spring night in Berlin
[23:01:26] @ Kergillian : anyhow - I'm off...cheers!
[23:01:35] Kergillian is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:01
[23:01:35] @ hmvh : I said on the wiki that hmvh + vis + tech.
[23:01:41] @ dmaxx : OK, bye quisquilla
[23:02:00] @ azzurro : hmvh - OK, so you're willing to bridge
[23:02:03] quisquilia is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:02
[23:02:03] @ dmaxx : hmvh: bridge? cool
[23:02:09] @ hmvh : FWIW.
[23:02:56] @ hmvh : Great. Everyone leaves, and I had one more question. A big one.
[23:03:49] @ little_alien : I'm still here fellow Tech member Wink
[23:04:13] @ azzurro : i'm here as well
[23:04:19] @ azzurro : though I think not for that long
[23:04:46] @ hmvh : Oh, thanks. Well, since this IS a bridge question...
[23:04:48] @ little_alien : same here
[23:05:53] @ hmvh : A quick read - a quick opinion of the HUGE task that lays ahead:
[23:05:59] @ hmvh : https://discogs.actieforum.com/8-submission-guidelines-allowed-data-f12/3-the-data-extracted-t229.htm
[23:07:48] @ dmaxx : "What is it we want to capture" VIS?
[23:08:07] @ little_alien : pff heavy stuff..
[23:08:33] @ dmaxx : Very heavy
[23:09:00] @ little_alien : as with all issues I'd say, implement as discogs, get it to work and improve from there at a later stage
[23:09:08] @ azzurro : indeed
[23:09:24] @ azzurro : well, with a small sidenote
[23:09:42] @ azzurro : I'ld prefer to have an errata field directly, and not in the release notes
[23:10:16] @ hmvh : Big sidenote: Errata field. Defined label fields. And more.
[23:10:52] @ dmaxx : Big indeed
[23:11:23] @ hmvh : OK. Kerg's good with words and politics.
[23:11:34] @ little_alien : knock knock, we should be glad if we get this to the level of discogs v2
[23:11:48] @ little_alien : everything that is added is a bonus
[23:12:02] @ little_alien : don't want to be the pessimist, but that's how i see it
[23:12:16] @ hmvh : This kinda stuff is what I'm good at. I'll work on it...
[23:12:43] @ hmvh : l_a... do you think you could code discogs v2?
[23:13:10] @ little_alien : if I had the time I could, I'd have to work on my AJAX skills though
[23:13:19] @ little_alien : but.. i don't have the time
[23:13:52] @ little_alien : after a week of coding at work I can't push myself to do more in the weekends, no matter for which good course it is Sad
[23:14:10] @ hmvh : Ajax was v3, and if I'd have the time I'd quickly teach myself Smile
[23:14:11] @ little_alien : I have been planning to make a qwebsite of my own for ages
[23:14:18] @ little_alien : never got round to it
[23:14:48] @ little_alien : well, we need ajax to speed up the submission form
[23:14:57] @ hmvh : Yeah, ogs made us all slaves to something strange we can't understand. Now it's DdB.
[23:15:09] @ azzurro : guys, my eyes are falling down, so I'm going off
[23:15:10] @ hmvh : Ajax for modding, absolutely.
[23:15:12] @ little_alien : instant lists etc without reloading the page
[23:15:36] @ little_alien : good night azzurro
[23:15:46] @ hmvh : Anycase. You guys go enjoy whatever Saturday has in stall for you.
[23:15:46] @ azzurro : thnx see ya later
[23:16:03] @ azzurro : hmvh - a bed Razz
[23:16:38] @ hmvh : Oh yes, I've seen those on TV Smile
[23:17:11] @ hmvh : OK, that's it for now... I also need a break. Anything else?
[23:17:27] @ little_alien : I wish i was a robot.. I'd go on all night and have that site ready in a week...
[23:17:36] @ dmaxx : azzurro: bye
[23:19:33] @ hmvh : Alright... let's call it a night/day/whatever. Later, ladies!
[23:19:39] hmvh is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:19
[23:19:55] little_alien is off too then...
[23:20:19] @ little_alien : die belgische biertjhes beginnen te werken...
[23:20:23] hmvh has joined the chat the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:20
[23:20:26] @ little_alien : biertjes zelfs
[23:20:49] @ little_alien : ehhh
[23:20:55] @ little_alien : you're back?
[23:21:10] @ hmvh : I missed you...
[23:21:31] @ little_alien : don't worry, I';ll be around on the forums Razz
[23:22:22] @ hmvh : Is there a way to link credits directly to tracks, no the ogs free text way?
[23:23:35] @ little_alien : sure, depends on how you set things up
[23:23:59] @ hmvh : I'd like to see global credits for global credits only.
[23:24:02] @ little_alien : a joiner table with track ID's and a credit role could be made
[23:24:40] @ hmvh : Track credits per track only -- but it must be easy to add, not having to enter thsame data as many times as there are tracks.
[23:25:13] @ little_alien : indeed
[23:25:17] @ hmvh : So we can extract (ID) each track per release? I'm looking for song pages, because... we can!
[23:25:46] @ little_alien : hmm, now you're loosing me
[23:26:00] @ little_alien : I'm still more release oriented
[23:26:16] @ dmaxx : Using track IDs?
[23:26:29] @ dmaxx : I thought it was rejected due to too complicated
[23:26:32] @ little_alien : but for credits to work properly we have to add an id to tracks
[23:26:59] @ little_alien : yes, using the ID's openly will be way too complicated
[23:27:07] @ hmvh : Exactly: Release ID + track# = unique track ID.
[23:27:09] @ dmaxx : Ok, but I'm talking about song pages etc
[23:27:14] @ little_alien : but underneath the presentation layer we need them
[23:27:15] @ dmaxx : Not openly
[23:27:20] @ dmaxx : Smile
[23:27:34] @ dmaxx : Good

[23:28:26] @ little_alien : if we have everything sorted, we can always work on song pages if desired
[23:28:34] @ little_alien : the structure will let us
[23:28:36] @ hmvh : Only as complicated as we make it. OK, let's leave it for now... I'll have to work up a few examples for a show and tell.
[23:29:18] @ little_alien : it's good to bring up possible future features
[23:29:32] @ dmaxx : It sure is
[23:29:43] @ little_alien : as we need an easily extensible and flexible data structure
[23:29:57] @ little_alien : which is the main thing which is holding discogs back
[23:30:12] @ little_alien : discogs was never intended to grow this big
[23:30:30] @ dmaxx : True
[23:30:31] @ little_alien : and it was built upon legacy flaws
[23:30:32] @ hmvh : It might be premature for those things but I'm looking a providing the data structure that allows us to make those features available when we're up to it.
[23:30:43] @ hmvh : ^^true indeed!
[23:31:41] azzurro has been disconnected the Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:31 (session timeout)
[23:31:44] @ little_alien : the downside is we will end up with zillions of tables :-S
[23:32:59] @ little_alien : a while ago I worked a bit more on my model and got depressed at realizing how many tables it would take to get this implemented correctly
[23:33:04] @ hmvh : Can't be worse that 'ogs, surely?
[23:33:18] @ little_alien : it woiuld become a more complex system than I have ever built
[23:33:37] @ dmaxx : You won't have to do it alone
[23:33:46] @ dmaxx : I realise it's an enormous task
[23:33:57] @ little_alien : flexible means more tables and anally normalizing things
[23:34:19] @ little_alien : discogs never did that
[23:34:41] @ little_alien : a good example is the text fields used for release-wide credit track positions
[23:35:14] @ little_alien : I can understand teo's decision though
[23:35:37] @ little_alien : it gave the people what they wanted and they were quiet for a while
[23:35:57] @ little_alien : and so one flaw gets built upon another
[23:36:08] @ little_alien : and there's no way back
[23:36:12] @ dmaxx : I bet he's hoping for the same to happen again
[23:36:16] @ dmaxx : People becomming quiet
[23:36:28] @ dmaxx : And they have
[23:36:38] @ dmaxx : But the majority of the experts is gone
[23:37:35] @ little_alien : I did submit a release today, just to keep my collection complete
[23:37:58] @ dmaxx : I stopped submitting when I got banned
[23:38:00] @ hmvh : YOU SUBMITTED A RELEASE?!?!?!
[23:38:16] @ little_alien : yes, I should be ashamed of myseld
[23:38:19] @ little_alien : self
[23:38:21] @ dmaxx : Many people keep submitting so they can import the xml when DDB is running
[23:38:34] @ little_alien : it even goy Correct voted rather quickly Wink
[23:38:39] @ dmaxx : Which isn't smart, why not submitting straight at DDB later?
[23:38:52] @ hmvh : Don't be. The watchlist is back, I've even done some modding and updating myself.
[23:39:27] @ little_alien : the watch list has showed me the true damage done
[23:39:36] @ hmvh : Because discogs is running (albeit poorly). DDB isn't.
[23:39:45] @ little_alien : not i can see how many pendings my favorite labels and artists have
[23:39:51] @ little_alien : not a pretty sight
[23:40:38] @ little_alien : ahh the time when ZYX Music was my little modding playground...
[23:40:49] @ hmvh : The best part is... few of those were even looked at since 10/03!!! My watchlist (pending items) is bigger.
[23:41:19] @ little_alien : now ZYX Music has 273 pendings Sad
[23:41:33] @ hmvh : And how many duplicates?
[23:41:49] @ little_alien : I have no idea
[23:42:39] @ little_alien : this makes me happy though http://www.discogs.com/submissions?label=ZYX+Music#item=release/1317933
[23:44:54] @ hmvh : Looks valid?
[23:44:56] @ little_alien : ok lokked enoug, back to Sad again
[23:44:57] @ dmaxx : It's only a matter of weeks before Discogs will be unsuable because of the crap
[23:45:11] @ dmaxx : unusable*
[23:45:26] @ dmaxx : It's all destroyed
[23:45:34] @ little_alien : I'd say give it 2 more months, which isn't a lot in the whole existence of discogs
[23:45:52] @ dmaxx : The damage al ready done is irreversible
[23:45:58] @ dmaxx : Not only the data, also the people
[23:46:06] @ dmaxx : The most devoted people are all gone
[23:46:09] @ hmvh : Hey, I just removed some websubs Wink
[23:46:35] @ little_alien : those marked for removal by sdevo?
[23:46:48] @ hmvh : Yep!
[23:47:04] @ little_alien : yeah voted on those too this evening
[23:47:25] @ little_alien : but the stream of removal requests simply is too big
[23:47:37] @ little_alien : it was manageable in the beginning
[23:47:48] @ little_alien : now it's simply huge
[23:49:18] @ little_alien : theoretically one can start a new user account now and gain voting rights on that too
[23:49:24] @ little_alien : now that's fun
[23:49:37] @ hmvh : Say what?
[23:49:48] @ hmvh : Everyone can vote now?
[23:49:57] @ little_alien : yes, notmal users are starting to get voting powers
[23:50:06] @ little_alien : only the more experienced ones
[23:50:10] @ hmvh : Oh, fuck!
[23:50:23] @ little_alien : https://discogs.actieforum.com/discogs-f2/you-now-have-voting-access-at-discogscom-t219.htm
[23:50:30] @ little_alien : didn't you read that?
[23:50:45] @ little_alien : yes, the gates are open
[23:50:57] @ little_alien : totally unannounced of course
[23:51:08] @ little_alien : teo hasn't learned anything
[23:51:38] @ hmvh : Yes but I thought there was some sort of decision making process behind that. Not everyone gets voting rights because of age or whatnot???
[23:51:41] @ little_alien : his social skills are even poorer than his programming skills
[23:51:41] @ dmaxx : I have no voting rights
[23:51:47] @ dmaxx : Maybe because I got banned
[23:52:09] @ hmvh : Yes dmaxx, we know that... we're proud of you Smile
[23:52:12] @ little_alien : banning is not good for voting priviliges i think Wink
[23:52:33] @ dmaxx : LOL
[23:53:09] @ hmvh : Any case... enough reminscing about the good old days.
[23:53:13] @ little_alien : so now the gates are open and we still don't have the old mod interface back, the downfall can really begin
[23:53:27] @ dmaxx : Yep
[23:53:41] @ hmvh : Goeden nagt!
[23:53:48] @ little_alien : welterusten
[23:53:51] @ dmaxx : Bye
[23:53:59] @ dmaxx : I'm going out too
[23:54:05] @ hmvh : lekkerslaap!
[23:54:07] hmvh is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:54
[23:54:11] @ little_alien : yeah, same here
[23:54:18] @ little_alien : almost midnight
[23:54:26] @ dmaxx : Goeienacht
[23:54:28] @ dmaxx : Inderdaad
[23:54:31] @ little_alien : lekkerslaap?
[23:54:35] @ dmaxx : Very Happy
[23:54:54] @ little_alien : wordt een gewone slaap voor mij ben ik bang Razz
[23:55:07] little_alien is Disconnected on Sat 26 Apr 2008 - 23:55

Just a few quick thoughts on what was raised last night. Firstly thanks to everyone that took part..you guys acheived a fair bit and I can't help but think that the concept of a SC when added to the chat process is working and will work when applied SSC.

Secondly though, reading through I need to voice a little concern that we need to guard against any language or implications that the SC is in any way an elite or stands above the community at large that appointed it. The SC is simply the servant of the community. Certainly some of the discussion when it came to voting rights gave that impression and I get the feeling that others outside the SC are seeing it that way.

Thirdly, I'm thinking that if the missing SC members are still MIA in a day or so they need to be replaced and there are cetainly a few potential candidates out there, esp those with coding skills, who should be looked at. And our potential legal expert, pano. Lazlo hasn't logged in for ages and unless he has a personal issue I guess he may be gone.

Fourthly, I think we need to be on guard against letting the little stuff get in the way of the overall purpose of these chats and the SC, which is to get a database, of a certain quality, online within a reasonable timeframe. Features can be added as needed as hmvh says.

My problem (which is still possibly being misunderstood) isn't about status, but about bestowing status. I'm just concerned that if we start selecting people and giving them decision-making abilities then cronyism becomes a concern.

My point is that we were selected to make decisions on the part of the community for 90s days. Our mandate does not allow us to choose other people to make those decisions - and we have to be very careful about selecting other people to help us and how much help they are allowed to give or else we may be straying from our mandate.

As someone who has worked in a LOT of committees, I'm always very cautious about this sort of thing. Outside expertise is a good thing but it's important to keep things very professional and stick as closely to the rules this community has created as possible - ESPECIALLY since we're hoping/planning for this to become a business/non-profit organization. So I'm not looking at this as a bunch of buddies building a fun website. I'm looking at this as a community-coordinated professional database intended to be an NPO. If (which doesn't mean that we're not all friendly and amicable while building it, and I think our attitudes have all been professional thus far - I'm just trying to maintain that as much as possible...)

I'm wrong, please correct me.

As for the little details - yes, sometimes I get caught up in them, but sometimes what seems like a little detail can have larger ramifications if we're not careful. So we have to seek balance between paying attention to fine detail and not paying TOO much attention to fine detail;)

Finally, yes - those who simply cannot respond need to be replaced. While I understand that most of us (including myself) have work concerns and limited schedules, we're going to have to have SSC chats once or twice a week MINIMUM, and anyone who cannot manage that should be replaced. This is a HUGE task, and if we want to catch hold of the momentum we've been creating the last couple of weeks and move things along smoothly before the 90 days are up, we're going to have to make sure everyone is available and on the same page...

Quote :

My point is that we were selected to make decisions on the part of the community for 90s days. Our mandate does not allow us to choose other people to make those decisions - and we have to be very careful about selecting other people to help us and how much help they are allowed to give or else we may be straying from our mandate.

I agree with that, in general, but we must never stray from remembering that the community gave us our mandate and we are of the community rather than above it and thus subject to the community. The expertise we seek, especially in the tech area, is a very large part of what will be required to make this work....witness the coding issues at Discogs where Teo is simply out of his depth and won't listen.

I understand the fear of cronyism as well and that's a real concern of mine. I don't want to see cliques developing, those with their own vision trying to override the vision of the community. I think we've avoided that to date but am wary that by being too strident that we are the SC we are doing that. It's a fine line.

Quote :

This is a HUGE task, and if we want to catch hold of the momentum we've been creating the last couple of weeks and move things along smoothly before the 90 days are up, we're going to have to make sure everyone is available and on the same page...

A huge task this, is but it's do-able. I've spent my whole life doing things that people said could not be done and I've always found that momentum (which often needs a push along, hence my move to add a SC and then SSCs in recent weeks when things were faltering) when coupled with humility goes a long way to opening most doors and achieving more than being too strident.

I'm back in the world of easy computer access, but it'll take me a while to get caught up with this last chat session. I've read through it, and I'll probably re-read it tonight, and make notes for myself.

One thing I wanted to state / ask: isn't the SC answerable to the rest of the site? Say for some crazy reason we all agree on something and we bring it for a site-wide vote, the rest of the users can say no where we said yes (or vis-versa). I bring this up in light of the discussion about SSC "consultants" vs. "members." While I think the discussion is useful, there are a number of layers that (might well) stand between an idea being accepted by an SSC, and being agreed upon as an element of the new site.

We are, of course, answerable to the community - which is why, at the end of 90 days, the community as a whole whether or not to renew the mandate or select new SC members.

On the flip side, we were chosen to 'get shit done' so to speak. So unless the community rises up and tells us that they do not want something done, we have those 90 days to do things on our own.

IMO, we're taking 90 days to present the progress we have made on the site to the community for their approval. That is the point where we know whether or not it is acceptable...

Kergillian wrote:

IMO, we're taking 90 days to present the progress we have made on the site to the community for their approval. That is the point where we know whether or not it is acceptable...

Precisely my point. If the exact roles and rights of a steering committee sub-group consultant are a point of prolonged discussion, I think we shouldn't worry too much, as there are other checks in place to keep everything open and agreed-upon. And what is the problem if a consultant brings forward an idea that barely makes it out of the sub-group, and it gets approval from both the SC and the community at large? Maybe the sub-group was short-sighted, or didn't have the same set of ideals as the site as a whole?

I know we don't want to be reactionary, creating more rules and guidelines because something was missed or went wrong, but we can change things as we go.

Fair enough