If we decide to do this, a couple of things we'll want to consider are:
1. Is this a group project that folks are welcome to join rather than something we're wanting group permission on? I think the former removes any pressure that folks might feel and allows them to decide if they want to do this or not.
2. Being a poli sci teacher and a poli sci junkie I know what it's like to see folks get riled up about politics. Do we want to have a policy on politics? Issues such as government spending, the environment, etc., can and should be discussed. But should they be touched on in a non-political (as much as that's possible, obviously) manner? Some form of policy that says "be careful" is probably a good idea, lest we spend too much time debating about universal health care or tax cuts.
3. We can have as many as 100 authors. Would we want to wait 'till someone said "I'm really interested" before actually inviting them? It might keep things simpler that way.
4. I've granted Gwenda and Mel administrator privileges and will do the same for Larrey if he joins. You can quickly see the potential that has. If we do this, it's probably wise to now have everyone down as an administrator simply b/c you can accidentally erase the site or gum up the HTML quickly.
Just some ideas to consider if we decide to run w/ this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Johnathan and Mel,
Good Questions and thoughts Johnathan. There should be a way to make posts newsworthy and interesting. Anyone interested in politics could be directed to cyberhillbilly Should we run some of these questions and the idea of a blog by Ron, Larry and Katie? BTW Johnathan, I've been reading your blog and trying to find Garry Barkers. I sent yours to my brother and a few other outspoken individuals that I thought would fit in the picture. I really got hyper when I read Mike Bryant's entry about recording history or perpetuating a stereotype...I even replied to it.
Post a Comment