Perhaps there simply aren't enough FP's to do the job - manage the site, write diaries, lead opinion, set the tone, provide editorial direction, encourage newcomers, massage hurt feelings, e-market the site, run campaigns, represent Eurotrib in the real world in various countries and on a wide range of topics.
That's a pretty gooddescription of all the task we try to do, and you're right that we're not enough for the job. some of these can be (and are) done by other community members, but they bump against the same limitations.
I know Jerome feels the answer to this is to have some paid staff, but I'm not at all sure about this. Firstly having some paid staff would alter the dynamics of a community site profoundly - "why is he paid to do some bits when I do loads without pay etc...." Secondly, I don't see the contradiction between voluntarism and organisation which many here seem to feel exists.
The reason why I'm pushing for some tasks to be paid for is that they require so much time and focus from people that they are, in effect, not compatible with any other work. So, unless you are alreadyon a pension, or lucky to live off a trust fund or equivalent, people would have to give up their income to do these tasks properly. Thus the suggestion that those that would do this be given an income to live on. I'd hardly think that it would be luxurious, and big enough to be seen as unfair if it provided a service to other site members.
As I said, some of the tasks could be remunerated on an ad hoc basis - preparing a summary of discussions on a topic like food or the anglo disease would be a full time job for an a academic and it deservedly should be paid the same kind of money (say, 1,000-2,000 euros per summary paper).
I prefer to work in an environment where I have few very clear and limited responsibilities rather than many vague and diverse ones. So what's wrong with having one FPer dedicated to design changes, another dedicated to just coding, a third defining editorial policy/writing position papers on energy, a fourth as Finland editor, a fifth responsible for e-marketing the site, a sixth responsible for welcoming/supporting/encouraging new members etc.
The flip side of having volunteers is that they may be tireless, but when they can't be around, there's suddenly none anymore. If we want to have a thinktank like presence, we'll need a consistent capacity to reply and do the various tasks expected of such a body. Such presence and consistency is also what would be purchased - and again that's fair.
The other issue with volunteers is that they brign the competencies they have, not those you need. Sometimes, it's good enough, but sometimes it isn't. Again, if we want serious visibility, we'll need to see what we need to do, and set about doing it on a consistent basis.
More generally, I think that people deserve to be remunerated for all the time and effort that they put on the site or its ofshoots; the goal would certainly not be to reward some and let the others continue for free, but find a way that all talent be harnessed and brought forward.
But we bump again agaisnt the limitations of avaialble money.
It is the quality of this dialogue which, to my mind, is a measure of ET's value, not its "correctness" on a range of pre-defined policy positions.
Yes - and I see our overall intellectual honesty as what we would sell, and it is also why I'd want to hire talent mostly from the community, becuase they know our values, how we function, and how we work, and would be in the best position to reflect thatto the outside.
:: ::
All your points are well made and raise legitimate issues. I do think we have answers, and that we can have answers - I agree that the diffciculty is to turn the potential into a reality, and these discussions will help in finding the way to do it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The reason why I'm pushing for some tasks to be paid for is that they require so much time and focus from people that they are, in effect, not compatible with any other work.
That's ok provided we are talking about ring-fenced financing for particular projects - the sort of work we could apply for funding from the EU or other public sources. Otherwise I don't know where we would get the money to pay €1000 per position paper etc..
It has to be part of the EU PR agenda to promote informed debate on key EU policies/concerns - so why not apply for a grant to research - e.g. reducing the EU food/energy footprint in global markets - or some much more specific topics which require elucidation - e.g. Options and role models for defining the role of the new EU President of the Council...
If we get funding for specific projects, no one will have a problem with people being paid to do the work. Otherwise you will run into the problems faced by all amateur sporting bodies, where some players/officials get paid to do their work whereas the organisation basically depends on voluntary effort to survive. What happens, after a while, is that the people doing all the voluntary work get pissed off after a while and the organisation shrivels.
ET is almost uniquely placed to apply for such funding, because of our pan European, and indeed global membership, and because we are disseminating and informing debate as well as doing some research. PR agencies get big contracts for doing much less. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Man. You should outsource that. My monthly stipend is less than what's in that bracket.
I'd like to apply when I'm done with the PhD, sick and tired of geology and want to stick around in Africa some more. :)
For what's it worth, I'm behind the strategy you propose 100%. As community, the thinktank scheme has been hashed out over the years. The core members can almost dream it - it needs to be tested.
A reason why I've begun feeling money has to come in at some point is that the tasks required to get the basic structures off the ground are simply not interesting enough to do in spare time based solely on volunteer capacity. In my spare time, I'd want to read, discover and write when online - not continue what I'm doing for 8-10 hours a day already.
A thinktank needs to have a certain "baseload", coupled with some nice surges, which can be volunteer based.
I'd even be keen to keep that site separate from the ETwiki, which would the store of our "collective wisdom", ie a easy reference to our earlier discussions, ie a way to go through all our "unfinished" discussions.
I don't wnat to change the site so much as build on what exists, and put it in a form which is more accessible/palatable/understandable/interesting to outsiders who don't have the benefit of spending day in and day out over here. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Maybe it needs to be a separate project seeded with ETers, but not under the same "brand". When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I think that is what the distinction between the front page and dairy sections should be about. The Diary section is for everyone to publish their thoughts - amateur or otherwise. The front page should be for the more seriously researched and perhaps peer reviewed papers that are our platform for greater influence in the outside world.
So following that, much of Einstein's major work wouldn't have been worthy of the front page. but his later, less important work would ave? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Then to the outside world we wouldn't look like a community blog at all any longer. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I'm afraid it would only create detached policy that would be more of the same. At least to me, the personal is political and viceversa, because it is intertwined. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
Any philosophical or technical reason why the number couldn't be...say...doubled?
Well, with apologies to the many able people who don't immediately spring to mind, I've always supposed it was limited numbers that meant DoDo wasn't an FP. And TBG's contributions are of a consistently high standard, though, in the interests of transparency and clique-avoidance, I need to say that I've known him for some time through another site.
Anyone else any nominations?
As I was saying before I messed up-any more?
