Re: Managing the fund

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, from now on nothing gets changed to anything anyone writes without me approving changes. We're not shifting our attitudes to any audience. I'm going to talk to Campbell in a bit and tell him to scrap several of those changes they proposed, particularly the probationary period and anything of that bureaucratic nature. They can keep in any rating systems they'd like to devise as long as they don't actually have an effect. I'll get back to you in a bit.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know*, I am skeptical of the direction the blogger/journalist network has taken: instead of a system to potentiate information, it's emerging as a rules-encumbered blogger rating instrument and training school for novice bloggers--I have stayed out of these activities, since I do not want to alienate Campbell and Sundeep or risk losing their skills.

Although I been receptive to Scott re-writing things that I wrote (though some of his efforts eliminate information in his pursuit terseness), I was astonished when he re-wrote (for the worse) Todd's description of the Science/Journalism project, and I have not seen any thing from Todd since then, have you? More recently, we received this:

Clark, please don't think I've forgotten about you. The document you provided is loaded with information and it's my assertion that this far along in the recruiting process, it may become increasingly necessary to shift our attitudes towards our audience. Specifically, the people we are attracting at the margin may well be closer to early adopters than innovators. As such, I'd like to reorganize the abundant amount of information present to be a "cleaner" read. I say this not to put down what has been written, but to emphasize that the attention span of future participants may well be diminished.

The document in question consists entirely (other than Campbell's IRC instructions) of excerpts and blog posts from Barrett Brown. I really have no interest in working in a project that accommodates people who can not understand the writing of Barrett Brown or who can not maintain attention for two pages. To the contrary, the more recent recruits include Ph.D. level scientists. I do not understand how he is proposing to revise this, but I told him go ahead (because I am curious to see what he has in mind).

I do not want to surface any of this; I just do not want to work closely with him.

_________________________

* Nov 19: Questions & comments about the schematic document:

The probationary period--is this for novice bloggers? The start-up writers (Allison, Todd, Hastings, Juan Cole et al.) are exempt from this, right? What if, after we have been up for a while, Glenn Greenwald expresses an interest in joining? (Or more realistic examples are ones that have actually come up recently, such as Jeff Jarvis or Andrew Exxum.) Seems like effrontery (and what would be the purpose?) to put such established figures through probation.

"Unable to communicate with anyone" -- sounds like Coventry at boarding school, what actually is meant?

In general, I worry about making the network unattractive to the writers we most want.

The notion of certifying bloggers seems presumptuous. Maybe it's the term. Instead: "Our stats show the network members like to read posts by these colleagues: [list]."

Barrett, don't risk being tagged ten years hence as the guy who had the blogger certification scheme. This is about information access, not rating writers.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM, barri2009 <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

What disagreements have you had with him? I need to keep tabs on the social dynamics so that I can take them into account, and also I like gossip.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:06:34 -0600
To: Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com>
Subject: Managing the fund

RE: "Does anyone know how such a fund should best be established? And if possible I'd like someone with basic knowledge of finances and bank accounts and whatnot to administer the fund - perhaps Clark or Scott or both?"

It is always a good idea to have more than one person administering money, as a safeguard against error, neglect or whatever.

However, do not assign Scott and myself jointly to this or anything; I increasingly think differently than Scott.

How about Scott and Tim, they seem to get along and Tim runs a business.

Clark

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302