On Wordpress you can see pending articles and drafts—you just have to look to see what’s in the queue before you start writing. I believe there’s also a scheduling plugin which specifically addresses this issue. I’m not assuming that we’re going to use Wordpress, but if we do, it has all the necessary mechanics, and I’ve seen them in use.
I have no idea why the BB crew have such a problem with this, but it’s possible that they’re just not taking the time to read their own blog.
Thinking about this a little bit more, does anybody else feel the temptation to suggest some kind of nuclear-fail-safe option?
Like, some kind of permanent promotions we instantiate right now, at the beginning, to ensure we are never brigaded and taken over by some concerted attack? Some kind of last resort that can step out of the shadows in our hour of need to wield some kind of mighty power, perhaps a TL5 promotion that can cut down the swathes of imagined hordes attacking our utopia!?
But really, isn’t the notion provocative?
And deadly!?
Does anyone have any familiarity with game-theory as it pertains to emergent political theory? I know we all know at least a couple of peeps who know some deep, defensey type stuff. Not quite sure how applicable those notions would be to political vibrancy though… for given definitions of vibrancy…
It kinda seems that making ourselves vulnerable to that kind of attack, however fanciful it may be, is the crux of the creation here.
I mean, even America has been despoiled by the Orange smudge.
yep.
I still say making a poll at the end of a submitted article to vote on is less of a headache than creating an editorial board, but I’m fine with an EB if that’s what people are more comfortable with.
So you want our own version of the perminent un security council?
I think of something like the Hugo awards, taken over several years ago by, effectively, Trumpists. A failsafe against such an event might make sense. Though honestly, we’re not exactly a homogonous group here as it is…
The way it is done at the NYTimes is they use a content management software that has data entry for the reporters. Each article then passes up the chain of editors and approvals, with the last check being the person who flips the switch to make it live to the site. Interestingly, all the big websites have one person who turns all the posts live. I worked for the company that makes the software they use to manage site content.
So, we might try a smaller version: have an editor group that reviews articles and a person that manages the site final content approval just to make sure the content is scheduled thoughtfully.
Is the next step to produce an initial group of editors - or at least a ‘editors working group’ - to thrash out the details of the process? (I agree with the above, btw, I’m detail-type, so I might well have been digging down into the detail).
I do think that as this is a potential draw to the site (of all the many kinds of people) - the moderatorial system, including complaint and access control should be solidly complete and in place before this feature ‘goes live’, but there’s no reason at all that the process for articles/editorial process couldn’t be developed in parallel with that. 
I think that is the next step. And probably a new thread.
Hold my beer. I’ll be right back…
Okay. Here we go;
Too long drank it.
‘ten second rule’, and all that.
That all sounds good - I’d still favour an (optional?) “I’d like to write about this, could you use it?” file. (Maybe even a drop-box of some kind?) as the difference between the NYT and us is that the NYT is (currently) more prestigious and so more likely to be able to pick and choose, and contributers submitting ‘on spec’, know they have take what answer they get.
We, on the other hand have less contributors (at first ;)) and it seems a shame not to be able to tell them we have a glut on the new Arduino, say, enabling them to either find a new angle, or produce something else that we can tell them that we’re more likely to publish.
Of course, it being optional, would still allow people to write that burning Magnus Opus on Arduinos, but then there more obviously do it at their own risk, made more explicit. 
[Oops, still completing post, please don’t reply yet.][All done, have at it!]
So all the disgruntled authors know they only have one person they need to shoot to exact revenge? I… don’t know how I feel about that. 
Actually I was thinking (rather unclearly) about how we can do without such a thing whilst still protecting ourselves.
But… making those things inviolate seems to be the whole point, I don’t know if any community function, distributed or no, could really replace that level of control and buck-stops-there-ness.
I was really surprised too. Seemed really manual and possibility of security risk is high.
It may be orthogonal to this specific discussion, but we should probably discuss at some point how copyright on submissions is going to be handled.
Assorted musings:
Not at all, there’s are all things we’ll need to sort out. There’s lots of detail and a whole jumble of discussion and these things are easy very to get lost/missed.
(Edit: And so I put a post in the other file.)
:twitch:
Old, old, habits die hard. As do nervous tics.
I’m all for that, as long as we can occasionally have a well-researched and foot-noted rant on Amazon’s horrible labor abuses.