Talk:Archive:Media Assets Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell Potter (not editors, but a sort of constable?) |
imported>Russell Potter mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
More to the point, if a particular person or body of persons is supposed to have authority to make binding decisions of ''any'' sort, what sort of decisions those are, and the processes whereby the decisions are made, need to be very carefully spelled out. Generally, and this is true not just here but in all cases, I think it is better not to give anyone any special authority unless it is ''really'' necessary. Is it ''necessary'' that any special workgroup have some particular authority you have in mind? That's the #1 question I would want to ask myself. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:05, 29 May 2007 (CDT) | More to the point, if a particular person or body of persons is supposed to have authority to make binding decisions of ''any'' sort, what sort of decisions those are, and the processes whereby the decisions are made, need to be very carefully spelled out. Generally, and this is true not just here but in all cases, I think it is better not to give anyone any special authority unless it is ''really'' necessary. Is it ''necessary'' that any special workgroup have some particular authority you have in mind? That's the #1 question I would want to ask myself. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:05, 29 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Agree about "Editors" -- but could there be, perhaps, Media Assets Constables? Or, if not that, a specific constable or constables already empowered could have the special task of montitoring an e-mail address for Media Assets questions requiring constable assistance? I do think that, as CZ grows, and more and more media materials are uploaded, it might be very helpful indeed to have some kind of 'dedicated line' for these issues. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 09:56, 29 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:56, 29 May 2007
I see no reason for "media assets editors." Editors properly so called are decisionmakers about content in particular fields. "Media Assets" does not correspond to a particular field, ergo it is interdisciplinary. The workgroup would be listed under "Project Workgroups," or some such general title, at the bottom of CZ:Workgroups, along with the Topic Informant Workgroup. No one in the TI Workgroup may approve articles, so mere membership in that workgroup does not confer editorship. --Larry Sanger 08:47, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
More to the point, if a particular person or body of persons is supposed to have authority to make binding decisions of any sort, what sort of decisions those are, and the processes whereby the decisions are made, need to be very carefully spelled out. Generally, and this is true not just here but in all cases, I think it is better not to give anyone any special authority unless it is really necessary. Is it necessary that any special workgroup have some particular authority you have in mind? That's the #1 question I would want to ask myself. --Larry Sanger 09:05, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- Agree about "Editors" -- but could there be, perhaps, Media Assets Constables? Or, if not that, a specific constable or constables already empowered could have the special task of montitoring an e-mail address for Media Assets questions requiring constable assistance? I do think that, as CZ grows, and more and more media materials are uploaded, it might be very helpful indeed to have some kind of 'dedicated line' for these issues. Russell Potter 09:56, 29 May 2007 (CDT)