[FM Discuss] updated IBD

[helen varley jamieson]

"tribal book collaboration" sounds like a pretty good description of 
what FM does - TBC! :)

what about listing "active contributors"? if someone has made a 
significant contribution then ceases to be involved, they could be 
acknowledged somewhere as a past contributor - or by ceasing to be 
involved in something that is constantly changing, perhaps they don't 
need to be continually acknowledged?

h : )

On 2/07/12 11:41 AM, mickfuzz wrote:
>> On 27.06.2012, at 15:46, Mick Fuzz <mickfuzz at clearerchannel.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> 5. Meaningful credit for all contributors
>> I will follow your lead and add that meaningful credit only makes sense when you see a book as an entitiy which is finished at some point. Or in other words: listing all contributors is impossible if the book is open and continued forever. In which case meaningful credit would be "thanks to all contributors"
> On reflection, you are right - Meaningful credit in this context is
> meaningless at the moment.
>
> I guess what I meant was descriptive attribution rather than mechanical
> / automated attribution. And also confusing it with a 'meaningful'
> relationship :)  -
> definition - a romantic relationship based upon mutual respect and
> supportiveness and marked by a sense of commitment and fulfillment.
>
> There are I guess advantages and disadvantages to all forms of
> attribution that we have discussed. For some reason I feel compelled to
> write some kind of summary of what we've been discussing.
>
> Group Attribution / No attribution - low overhead but potentially low
> incentive (and I still don't know where to send that T-shirt)
>
> Descriptive Attribution - as in the 'About the book' chapter. This  But
> this gives the impression that the work is finished and could discourage
> new edits and reuse.
>
> Automated / Mechanical Attribution - can track the writers and editors
> in a more complete way, but this can be hard to maintain (especially if
> printed) and hard to get a sense of the main contributors at a glance.
> This kind of completeness seems like it is only possible as a webpage of
> edits.
>
> Try working out who wrote what from looking at a Wikipedia History page.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attribution_%28copyright%29&action=history
>
> Currently for Book Sprints, I get the impression that because of the
> complexity of this situation the main credit and publicity often seems
> to go to the convening organisation, event or the sprint facilitator.
>
> I think that this is working pretty well with FLOSS Manuals, but does
> this lack of 'meaningful' attribution leave us with a kind of tribal
> book collaboration.
>
> nice one
> Mick
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>


-- 
____________________________________________________________

helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
helen at creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.make-shift.net
http://www.upstage.org.nz
____________________________________________________________