[TAG] Re: [Lgang] LG direction (countinued)

[Ben Okopnik]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:32:09AM -0700, Mike Orr wrote:
> 
> If the ideas can be generated just by emails on lgang or tag or in a chatroom,
> fine.  

I've seen a bunch of good, useful stuff scroll by since I asked. It
would be good if more people jumped in, but I'm quite pleased with the
response.

> What I meant by task force is a group that would put a 
> couple hours of dedicated time into generating ideas, and then make sure
> the plan gets accomplished.  It's certainly not intended to limit input
> or participation from those outside the task force; it's just a way to
> make sure it gets done.

At this point, it's still brainstorm time - although a couple of people
have already volunteered to write articles and tips. As of yet, there
isn't a plan, although I'm looking at a few possibilities; if we already
had a plan, I'd be damn suspicious of it, and be sniffing for the
half-baked odor.

Yeah, it's going to take effort to actually make things happen. If some
folks happen to volunteer for the tasks that we end up defining as
necessary, that would be great (and some already have.) If no one did,
that would be an indicator of rot in the state of Denmark and I'd be
looking closely at the underlying issues, something that would be more
serious than a decrease in circulation. For now, though, I don't want to
say or even imply that someone who proposes a good idea is committing
themselves to *doing* it (nice as that would be.)

> I'm out of it.  It's up to you and the others to choose titles that you
> think are most appropriate.  I did what I did out of a sense of vision of
> what I thought LG's responsibilities were and what it should be like --
> not because of any title.

I'm not looking for any additional titles myself, but I am seeing a
dimension of the job that needs to be addressed that is separate from
being an editor. Perhaps your experience was sufficient to create that
vision for you; I'm trying to learn the job and need mile markers and
frames of reference.

> I guess that's why I never thought about it;
> I just did it by osmosis.  Maybe now we need to make it more explicit?

As a definite and distinct part of the job that needs some careful
thought put into it, yeah. As I see it, it's the part that deals with
the longer-term issues - and is thus directly responsible for LG
eventually sinking or staying afloat. Pushing The Big Red Button at EOM
is similar to what's referred to as the "monkey skills" in flying: it's
the stuff that you do without thinking about it much, the basic motions
of controlling the plane (not that these are trivial - what they are,
after lots of training, is a *given*.) "Staying ahead" of the plane,
thinking about what you're going to need to do in the next X minutes as
well as the larger issues (fuel management, weather avoidance,
navigation, situational awareness, closest landing field in case of
engine failure, etc.) is the actual job of piloting. Conflating the two
is a poor idea.


* Ben Okopnik * okopnik.freeshell.org * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette *
-*- See the Linux Gazette in its new home: <http://linuxgazette.net> -*-