Re: scirate coordination

[jono]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: scirate coordination
Date:	Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:15:08 +0100
From:	Jonathan Oppenheim <jo...@damtp.cam.ac.uk>
To:	j.opp...@ucl.ac.uk
CC:	Steve Flammia <sfla...@gmail.com>, bill....@nus.edu.sg, aram harrow <har...@gmail.com>, Ben Reichardt <ben.re...@gmail.com>, Christian Schaffner <hue...@gmail.com>, sci...@googlegroups.com, Kevin Zatloukal <kevi...@gmail.com>, chr...@uw.edu

Hi all, I've reset the doodle so people can choose times again for the
next scirev/rate hangout (just advance the date by one week in your heads):
http://doodle.com/74y3yy2wbxgt558q
Perhaps in the future, we can just keep Tuesday at 5 pm BST if that
works for people.

I will try to merge the various design docs, so look for it in the
google doc., and we will aim to get consensus on it at the next
hangout.  So please highlight or comment on any points of contention.
Meanwhile, each working group is meant to flesh out their design if
needed, Kevin and Aram are meant to flesh out UI and bring experts on
board.  I am meant to talk to some experts on recommendation engines.

J

On 30/07/12 01:14, jono wrote:
> Okay, looks like Ben won't be able to join us for the next hangout, so
> let's make it at 5 pm London time, on Tuesday  I suggest that we start
> with each working group presenting their proposed design, which might be
> a bit tight given where things are at, but hopefully this will spur some
> discussion.  Would be great if people could circulate the proposals in
> advance (e.g. through the merge doc).
> J
>
> On 25/07/12 19:23, jono wrote:
>> Okay, here is the doodle for the next scirev/scirate hangout:
>> http://www.doodle.com/74y3yy2wbxgt558q
>>
>> I thought last meeting went okay, considering how many of us there were,
>> and the time allotted, but I think it's going to take time to make
>> decisions with so many of us.  Hope it wasn't too frustrating.  I think
>> one thing which will speed this up is if the various subgroups really
>> flesh out and reach consensus on the area they are looking at before the
>> meeting, and that people have a chance to raise concerns in advance, so
>> it would be good if people could very soon put up the proposals in the
>> google doc.  We should also perhaps start thinking about how we can best
>> make decisions (as Kevin noted, if we have to resolve things by voting,
>> then we are in danger of having an inconsistent set of features).  Feel
>> free to send me any feedback on how we run the hangout next time.
>>
>> Ben, you missed the breaking off into workgroups which will try to
>> decide/flesh out particular features, so feel free to add yourself here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n6Otcle9IFyF71Budet2xpIe_ny7C2tTqhBVLF-ECyw/edit
>>
>> Best,
>> Jonathan
>

[Steve Flammia]

There is one thing missing in the current design doc that I would like to bring up. 

The first is that I think we should encourage real names rather than handles. I think that this has a civilizing effect on discourse since your actions are directly attributable to you personally. That said, I support the option to comment anonymously by checking a box.

The second thing is the ability to link accounts. That way the user can log in with any account they choose: fb/g+/openid as well as the arXiv. Mathoverflow has this feature.

Since we're trying to converge on a final version of the design doc, I thought I would send these ideas in an email rather than directly add them. What are your thoughts?

-- Steve

[aram harrow]

I think encouraging real names (and also linking to the professional
website and arxix feeds) of people is a good idea. Down the road, I
could imagine awarding reputation points for this (although verifying
it is tricky).

I also agree with linking accounts. I can't see any downside to it.

aram

[jono]

Hi, Looks like next meeting is this Tuesday, 4 pm BST. Regarding the
suggestions below, they are in the design doc, but I guess it wasn't
very clear:
Under "User Pages", there is a list of fields which can be filled out,
including fb id, G+, arxiv id
Under "Sign up/Login" it asks for real name.
Note that under policy, I've suggested something even stricter from the
scirev doc, which is that you have to have submitted an arxiv paper, or
be able to be verified by arxiv users. Because I think this is clearly
a community tool. I don't think we should verify this, but it's just
something we can point to if we get crack pots or randoms. If people
have other suggestions, or comments, feel free to do it in the doc, but
maybe put a comment there, so everyone knows it's an addition.
J

--
I don't check my gmail, so please use my ucl address when replying. Thanks!