• Write on the front page: should remain the right and duty of a separate group based on editorial considerations, or there'll be a mess. Editorial decisions could be taken individually but abiding to a set of rules (not on content but who and when gets to post and such).

• Let there be a single Speaker who is ET's face to the media. Other than that, people could speak on behalf of ET after putting up a diary with what they would like to talk/write, and then say a two-thirds vote by those bothering to participate should give the authorisation.

• Who shall be frontpager: for the sake of continuity, and because they know what kind of frontpage duties would need backup most, the frontpagers could get to decide. Or if that is too much self-selection, maybe we should do this as a bicameral system, with two-thirds majorities of both existing frontpagers and readers of a candidacy diary needed. Hm... The latter should be a secret ballot, and negative votes would be a bad idea, but then how to set the majority? Need to think more about this.

• Decide who is owner: if ownership is spread out, it should go with as little exclusive rights as possible. Maybe ownership could be made equal with subscribership? (Sorry if I am covering existing ground, I didn't follow much the threads on LLPs) So only expulsion matters, maybe it could be done by two-thirds vote or by troll-rating.

• Site finances audit: verification by making everything public, agreement by three rounds two-thirds, one round majority vote of those who bother to participate in a diary on such decisions.

• there should be a select circle of volunteer techies, chosen the same way frontpagers are, who can implement changes of de-bugging or additive nature on their own but more 'major' changes would again be put to vote.

• I'd make this a four-fifths vote among those bothering to participate in a relevant diary.

to speak on behalf of ET to the outside world
= FPs only, after consultation.
= JG remains the front man - whether a sole owner or one of dozens
to decide on who should be a front pager

to decide on who should be (and who should remain) an "owner"
=If a coop the laws of the coop would apply

to agree on/verify how the site money is spent
=transparency: see the admin of wiki for how to do it.

to decide on (major/all) technical modifications to the software and functionalities of the site.
=Everyone may suggest mods. A technical board will agree on viability. Admin decides if financially feasible. FPs make final decision.
=On ongoing debate which should be revisited regularly

to decide on creating new sources of income for ET and on their use
= tricky. Lot's more to talk about...

Most important is to continue with the Energy issues which seem to be one of our core competences (me excluded), and to getting the reports and opinions and facts out there - which needs better communications skills and channels (hopefully I can help in that part)

The Debates are a useful tool for keeping issues in front of everyone, espcially about site matters. I know you can have a hotlist of your own. But Debates are always visible to everyone.

You can't be me, I'm taken

As I conceive of this, the FPs and the... liquidity contributors would together constitute a single decision-making body or membership (I imagine there will be a certain overlap anyway), whereby the front-pagers might be considered as being an "authorized" editorial board. With that in mind:

• Front page - FP board only

• Speaking on behalf of ET - as decided by consensus

• Deciding on new FPs - membership consensus, with perhaps the FP board having the power to propose nominations

• Membership: That's bound to become sticky at some point or another; I figure all comers should be welcome, with some mechanism for ejecting the egregious.

• Money: without maximum transparency and consensus in money matters, this ain't gonna fly. IMO.

• Technology: I think modifications should be left to the discretion of whoever gets designated as long as it doesn't impair service or require significantly greater expenditures.

• Revenues and allocation: definitely a matter for the membership.

No.  I think the FP should be controlled by editors (I would even say the FPers should not be allowed to FP their own work.)

2) Representing ET.

For group projects, I think you need 100% agreement of those involved, so anyone who doesn't want the ET name associated with a project just joins the conversation and adds their "no"--the veto approach.

3) Who should be a frontpager?

Ideally, someone who doesn't have a lot of diaries they want to write, but reads a lot of diaries they'd like to promote (see 1 above)

4)  Ownership.

If ET remains an online magazine (this is how I see it at the moment), then the easiest solution is that Jerome maintains ownership.  He would also, of course, be liable for all costs...  (but this isn't a problem right now.)  I think a discussion about ET direction would generate more ideas about a future structure...a bit chicken and egg, or helix or sommat...but t'is (and no doubt always will be) a young blog (you only feel as old as your youngest frontpager?)...

5) Spending money.

Yes, open discussion via diaries, please, followed by a vote and some form of majority agreement (DoDo's systems--two thirds etc/--sound fine to me.)

6)  Tech modifications.

I'm not a techie, but it seems ET has a good number of contributors capable of helping out.  I would very strongly encourage this, maybe by finding out a) who wants to help, b) what needs to be done (daily, weekly, long term, etc.)  I would see tech. work as comparable to writing a diary: it should be enjoyable for those concerned and not a chore.  (Well, I'd say that should be the rule for all ET contributions of whatever kind :O)  It is also an aspect that can develop in many directions...an open structure...linked to readers and diarists via "Does it work?" "Do you like it?" etc...  So yes, an open tech. team sounds good.  And NO CHANGES WITHOUT CONSULTATION followed by DoDo-style agreement, please.

7) Sources of income.

Transparency, please.

....and now my additions...

8.  An open discussion re: siting the server in Europe.  A diary for suggestions, with costings etc., pros, cons...until agreement is reached.  This could be a useful diary for anyone who would like to set up a server in Europe...an info dump of companies, pricings, tech info., etc.  I don't think any confidential data would be needed, just basic numbers (How many gigarams of cache bite do you need to run 24 hour video streaming etc...;')  I think this would be a good way to get the tech. team area started.  Practical, doable and, I think, needed.

9.  An ET bank acc.  In the first instance, only Jerome can take out.  Any others to be named and responsibilities listed...indeed, even Jerome to only take out according to set criteria...  I don't like payment over the internet, I don't want a credit card, and am trying to kill off the ones I have (one down, one to go!)  I would like to be able to go into my bank and credit the ET acc. with, say, £10.  Just give me a number, and a reason for the needing the money.  Simple as that.

10.  That'll do from me.

I would certainly be glad to contribute, IN DOLLARS, worthless as they are, or my bottle cap collection and some old string as you prefer.  Since this is an European site, I would not want "ownership" rights.  I would encourage a transparent financial plan coupled with the "constitutional monarchy" idea Sven modeled above.  What I would really like to see is the continuation of this most excellent place to visit and learn from.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

One is the hardcore ownership.. the other is the loose status ownership.
This is why some people do not like the word owner.. because they like the loose status ownership..

SO I will make it perfectly clear on what I am talking about..because this is a Jerome decision about what kind of ownership he is going to give..if he gives any.

My take is...

IF JEROME GIVES A HARDORE (STANDARD NAME) OWNERSHIP then my opinion is:

a) yes, write

b) yes, if asked directly..by default someone chosen.. but if he can or he is given the chance.. yes, with full rights

c) Yes with one vote. 2/3 of ownership to agree

d) Yes, vote open to new owner 2/3 to agree

e) Yes, unconditionally on money check and say.

f) Yes, but I do not think it really matters too much.. normally you need advise.. the one that gives the advice is the relevant one.. so choosing a technician in charge.. yes a vote (2/3) after that.. it willprobably just implementing

g) Yes. 2/3

Jerome should have a bigger weight of vote..but no veto power.

Now IF JEROME CHOSES a LOOSE OWNERSHIP STATUS (this is more than purely contributing with some money which would give none of the rights above but maybe other that we discussed)

a) The owners should decide the frontpager..So no for the everyday ones.. BUT MUST have the right to eventually write in the front-page with a very fast-track process. Fast-track submission to other ownership and fast vote (a lack of vote would be a yes). Jerome MUST have veto power.

b)No in out of the blue situations, but YES with a fast-track (submission to other owner, vote 1/2 majority, and Jerome not vetoing the letter) for anything written to a newspaper. More consideration and time for radio or TV opportunities should be given... in a word.. some training if the situation appears. I think it is more relevant to decide who looks for the radio and TV interviews or what kind of approach is given to promotion... ANd on this issue I would say that owners should have a voice adn be heard.. and vote.. 2/3 of owners should be able to veto just as Jerome have. SO, right to propose, right to vote and right to veto if 2/3 agree to veto.. no matter if Jerome would want to do it, owners would be right to kill any particular promotion. If they do not have this ability I would not call it ownership in any loose sense.

3. Yes, decide. vote. Jerome has veto and 2/3 to agree.

4. Consultation, yes. Final call Jerome.

5. verify yes.. always , we are open community: Decide.. well, this is basically like the promotion. Jerome veto power but also 2/3 veto majority.

6. Consultation, yes: Final call Jerome

7. This is the most difficult one actually. Consultation for sure. BUt should 2/3 of owners have right to veto this.. I am not sure... I dunno.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

(And doesn't it say a lot about civilized this site is that the last "Hidden Comment" was over a month ago?]

So I guess I'd just like to see this site -- in terms of content and contributors -- continue evolving the way that it has. I've never liked the cliché, if it's not broken, don't fix it, but this is one time where it seems particularly apt.

As to finances, well, I'm an easy touch. If Jerome wanted to turn this into a little personal profit center (a la Andrew Sullivan), with seasonal pleas for funds, I would be the first to contribute. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, if ET became a not-for-profit entity with yearly membership "drives," I would also be willing to send some bucks its way. (In either case, I wouldn't insist on any "ownership rights" -- although the "right" to transparency would be a plus -- we're talking about sums of money so relatively small that it would be obnoxious to quibble about how they were spent. If, for example, this site suddenly became a Sarkozy front, I would simply stop donating, with no regrets.)

Rereading this, I see that I'm not being very helpful. I respect Jerome a lot for trying to do this up front and so transparently, but I think he's also making things more complicated than they need to be. Whatever you guys decide, I'll support.

At Kokee, cabins are leased for a few years (it matters not the time and I don't remember anyway) to be returned to the pool and rebid upon the next time.  In this way the park has all these "owners" who own the park for a period of time and then recycle the privilege for someone else.  It is a nice way of keeping things undeveloped and "in the family" here.  The down side (rather call it an in-egalitarian weakness instead) one might argue is the requirements to have a certain amount of money to bid limits the access.

Perhaps you might provide some access to the more desirable page positions and even ad placement thru a bidding process that could utilize both mojo and monetary contributions?  Like an art exhibit where everyone puts it a few bucks to enter and supposedly their mojo is what is judged?

The other concept from around the world in Hawaii is "Hui."  That is the idea of everyone gathering around and contributing their money or resources to accomplish a group objective or goal too big for just one.  The rewards all share.  

It seems to me that the idea of a "hui" (folks that share in the cost, share in the profits) is one that merits attention if self sustaining financial positon is one of the goals.  

In my limited experience I can see that the key (revenues, permanance) to all of this stuff we are talking about is "community!"  

Pacific Tribune

It has been stated, by Jerome IIRC, ET is supposed to move toward "Being the European version of Dkos."  Well, that's a nice elevator speech, as we say here, but what the heck does that, in detail, mean?  

Raising money for EU elections?

Lobbying group?

On-line think tank?

WWW snark fest?

On-line magazine of politics, philosophy, and economics?

something else?

Dkos, as Kos has repeated stated, is intended to elect Democrats.  If it's a Democrat dKos supports it.  That is The Point around which all revolves.  With 1/2 of the contributors/users residing outside the EU and the main communication language (English) being the native tongue of the most Euro-Skeptic country within the EU I submit it is problematical to use dKos as the model to follow.

It has been suggested ET should become a "community."  Again, what does that mean?  Obviously we are not all going to move to Paris and live in Jerome's flat.  Yet something (what?) more than Yet Another Scoop Blog is being sought.  The looser the Fitness Landscape is defined the greater the number of actions that can be preformed with a concurrent diffusion of concerted action of the Agents.  (Translation to English from Jargon upon request. :0 )

I'm being a pain here but I submit until you know where you're going it's hard to know how to plan the trip.    

Income:  a self-evident income producer possibility is a book.  Enough material has been churned-out over the last two years.  One bottleneck is getting someone to take on the task.  Other barriers are for the original writers to permit the use of their work, finding a publisher OR marketing the darn thing if self-published, disbursment of revenues, disbursement of intellectual credit, etc.

I note the ~€2,000 pledged during the recent fund-drive isn't going to be enough, IMHO, to fund physically moving to a European Server -- unless the hardware is provided gratis.

Just to restate:  I expect nothing for my financial contribution.  The measly amount I can afford is worth it as ET keeps me off the streets and out of the bars at night.  ;-)

Have epistemological model of Complex Information environments. Will Travel.

So I think you should put the trademark and the domain names in trust, be done with ownership and concentrate on management of what needs to be done.

As I have said in the previous thread, I see the following distinct (but broad and overlapping) categories of people...

1. readers - these are the most important, but as lons as they remain anonymous (and most of them are anonymous) they play no functional role. When readers register am account they become...

2. users - those users who contribute content (as comments or diaries) are

3. writers - as I say above, as long as ET does not explicitly state otherwise, they retain the copyright to all their contributions, and so are in a way "owners" of an important part of the site. ET might want to demand "transfer of copyright" but I don't advocate this (and I would probably not contribute under those terms). The most likely situation is one where writers license their content to ET under a default (and relatively restrictive) licence, which they can relax on an individual basis. Some writers are more equal than others, and are

4. editors - also known as front-pagers, they are responsible for the editorial direction of the site, reflected in its front page.

5. trustees - Jerome and Booman, who "own" the idea/trademark of ET

6. techies - A role soon to be taken over by Colman and hopefully a team of users. Most of the costs of running the site are managed by these people, as they are in charge of hosting and maintaining the server [or buying professional hosting)

7. donors - people who support the site monetarily.

As for the rights and duties you list:

• to write on the front page - this is the province of the Editors, who as we know can simply promote others' writings to the front page
  
• to speak on behalf of ET to the outside world - this should be done by Trustees and Editors [except that the techies get to speak on behalf of ET on technical matters and any user can spread the word about ET]
  
• to decide who should be a front-pager - this is best done by a process of user nomination and decision by the trustees in consultation with the existing Editors [i.e, users nominate, editors veto, trustees appoint]. This also works for removal of front-pagers.
  
• to decide who should be an "owner" - let's talk about who can be a trustee. Let's say the existing trustees can step down voluntarily, and that there should be a (rarely used) process of nomination and election of trustees (for instance, nomination by the Editors and confirmation by a vote of the users).
  
• to agree on/verify how the site's money is spent - this should be done (transparently) by an "executive committe", say composed of one representative from each group (user, writer, techie, trustee, donor, editor).
  
• to decide on technical modifications to software and functionality - suggestions by users, decision by editors in consultation with the techies
  
• to decide on new sources of income and their use - again transparently by the executive committe

Whenever there's a paypal account, let me know and I'll go there forthwith. Maybe talk to the folks at Marianne about a joint subscription thing, mine's expiring anyhow and I have to renew.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

*  to write on the front page
Decided by the editorial board, in consultation with members and users

* to speak on behalf of ET to the outside world
The editorial board or their delegate

* to decide on who should be a front pager
Decided by the editorial board, in consultation with members and users

* to decide on who should be (and who should remain) an "owner"
Decided by the members

* to agree on/verify how the site money is spent
Proposed by the editorial board after consultation with members, agreed to by the members

* to decide on (major/all) technical modifications to the software and functionalities of the site
Proposed by the editorial board, after consultation with members and users, and if agreed to by the members

* to decide on creating new sources of income for ET and on their use
Proposed by the editorial board, after consultation with members, agreed to by the members

In this model, of course, the "site owner" would in effect be the editor in chief selected from and by the editorial board.


So, here I am in Ravenna. Where exactly was the Rubicon, again?

I.  PEOPLE:
A.  Members:  anyone who requests it, most of whom would donate.
B.  Editors, FPs, Starters and their "internalized" responsibility costs-benefits.
C.  Techs whose contribution is the expertise:  extra consideration.
D.  Readers.

II.  VISION:  Why am I here?
1.  EU PROGRESSIVE grassroots? power:
    a.  "Energize Europe", supporting existing expertise.
    b.  Recurring themes():  
        *CUT WASTE  
        *English media "translation" services and its PUBLIC PROMOTION
        *The PEOPLE RULE and will be heard...
    c.  Issue groups to break down EU walls:  inroads to pols.
    d.  Blog to Action:  Activity groups for EU action.
    e.  (Variables.)
    f.  (ET quotables.)
2.  People to People communication ...with European emphasis.

III. FORMS:

1.  Coop, community:  writing, voting, collaborating, contributing.
   
2.  Online blog on an European server (and capacity for thousand+ post page-refreshing).

1.  Community hardware.
   
2.  Community software:  Technical configuration experts.
   
3.  Tech-nics are able members (who contribute only in kind) and deserve...?
   

V.  ROLES IN ACTION:
    1.  Tech-ing.
    2.  Writing
    3.  Editing
    4.  Leading, etc.

UNKNOWN/UNDECIDED:
*Anyone want ET as a source of income?  If so, legal, acctg., audit controls, etc. become cumbersome and require more titles, so there is no flat org chart.  
*Anyone want the biggest, baddest blog in Europe as a goal?  Quality vs. Quantity.
*Anyone expect individual fame-fortune to come through their ET activity?  How would other writers feel?  (If anyone asks for help in promoting work into fame and it is achieved, would be happy with appropriate credit to ET.)  Otherwise, activity results would be ET´s fame-fortune.
*How many levels of power? and how many above members/writers?
*Will Booman give up any future control he may have?
*Does Jerome (et al) want to keep specific, proprietary control?  AFAIK, he built it, he has first options... credit, then the community choices are only operational.
*How many "roles" can a single member play at once?

_Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena._