[FM Discuss] Recruiting more editors for book sprints

Sun Oct 23 11:59:56 PDT 2011

Forgive the top-posting.

I've been lurking here and on IRC for months, but haven't really
talked or participated very much.

I work as a technical writer: I was the primary writer behind the
"Linode Library," (http://library.linode.com) and now I'm working on the
manual for one of those open source non-relational database systems
(more on this in a couple of months? maybe less.) I've also done a fair
bit of higher-level editorial-type work.

I think call them what you will but having someone working at a higher
level (editors, facilitators, meta-writers) while a bunch of people are
working with research material and constructing text, is absolutely
essential to getting something that is more "book" than a collection of
words.

While I wouldn't go as far as institutionalizing it, I have a few
observations:

- Software projects have had this level of organization and it's totally
  essential, even projects that aren't formalized or have institutional
  backgrounds, very quickly get maintainers and leaders who take the
  point on questions of overall design, as well as leadership around
  direction and releases.

  There's no need to formalize this role in the book-sprint/floss manual
  world, but I think it would be nice to understand a bit more about
  what kinds of things that these folks are actually doing, and what
  kinds of approaches work best/worst to ensure that books come out at
  the end.

  The effect of good project management and leadership is really crucial
  is not to be questioned.

- This point displays my inexperience with booki/floss manuals
  infrastructure, but I think the tooling for collaboration on
  documentation/writing projects isn't quite there. Which means there
  are some things that people have to do that could and will probably
  get offloaded to tooling in time. I'm thinking about the way issue
  tracking and distributed editing/revision happens, how changes to high
  level modifications and reorganization trickles down to people
  writing, as well as the avoidance of duplication of effort. Right now
  it takes a person, but I imagine that DocsGit and DocsBugzilla (ok,
  bad example) will eventually help the process.

So in summary (and just thinking out loud there) but maybe what we need
is less "institution" and more "understanding," and with than
understanding some automation to facilitate that work so that sprints
are more likely to go well.

Finally, is there a FM contingent in New York City (NY, USA), and I've
just missed it until now? I'm newish to town, but would totally be game
for getting involved in FM activity if it happens something locally.

Cheers,
sam/tychoish

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 06:18:33AM +0200, adam hyde wrote:
> hey Andy,
>
> Its not about editors and writers. It is a fundamentally different
> dynamic. If you stratify this dynamic you hamper it and impose arbitrary
> and unnecessary limits. The point is not to have editors and writers but
> to have collaboration. Imagine if you were playing an editor role with a
> book of 40,000 words generated in 4 days. To filter that through one
> person as "the editor" is going to cause a bottleneck that will break
> the process.
>
> This what I mean when I say its the wrong lens through which you are
> asking the question. You are seeing this as writers and editors. Its
> not. Its all about collaboration and facilitation.
>
> adam
>
>
>
> On 23/10/11 05:49, Andy Oram wrote:
>> What you did was pretty extraordinary, Adam, like a grand chess master
>> watching four boards at once and playing each its own way. I bet there
>> are certain directions and problems you can pick up quickly now, like
>> books that are all over the place with no clear audience or purpose. And
>> maybe if a facilitator is dedicated a project, he or she can carry out
>> the jobs I mentioned. The facilitator could be an editor. But I feel
>> like I was doing something useful that was not just high-level.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> On 10/22/2011 11:38 PM, adam hyde wrote:
>>> hey
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume Adam has reached the same conclusions, and that's why he
>>>> invited floaters to the sprint last week.
>>>
>>> I think you might underestimate the role of the meta facilitation during
>>> this event. I dont wish to take issue with your report or diminish your
>>> role but each group was *carefully* watched by myself. If your group had
>>> not progressed with or without you I would have taken the process a
>>> different route. Its not the necessity of floaters that is at question
>>> it is the role and nature of the of the facilitation that makes the
>>> difference. The fact that you didnt see this is a pretty good metric of
>>> successful facilitation. I think your question is using the wrong lens.
>>>
>>>> So as always I'm pondering the value of professionalism in
>>>> crowdsourced work like this, and how it can be institutionalized.
>>>
>>> There is a tension here that I think is also captured in one of your
>>> blog posts. Institutionalisation will kill this process. I think you are
>>> fundamentally not understanding the nature of communities and
>>> collaboration. The publishing industry at large will struggle to make
>>> headway in this area unless they find a way to get past many of its
>>> established core cultural values.
>>>
>>> adam
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
>>>> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
>>> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
>> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net

--
tycho(ish) @
garen at tychoish.com
http://tychoish.com/
"don't get it right, get it written" -- james thurber
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20111023/2ae91bc9/attachment.pgp>