|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 17:15:59 GMT
I think that 10-15 threads a week for newspicks sounds about right. That jibes with the number of news stories I remember seeing on Groklaw for a given week. Being able to discuss them individually is a nice bonus.
Off Topic is actually better than the way it works on Groklaw, because you don't have off-topic conversation attached to an article about something specific (and if you do, you can move it to the off-topic board).
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 14:45:29 GMT
I think someone needs to ask the folks at ibiblio how long the site will be hosted. I'm not sure who is keeping up with the domain name registration either, if it's not PJ. The answers to those questions will probably tell us whether we need to mirror things here or not (although I'd guess that the internet archive probably has a decent mirror of public material from groklaw).
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 14:40:39 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 13:40:27 GMT
I think you're talking more about policy than politics, per-se. The actions taken by different actors is relevant regardless of whether it's a government agency or commercial entity (or private individual) for issues of security or privacy, true.
The main reason I think that politics shouldn't be a main focus here is that there are a number of other places that do a very good job of speaking about political issues related to rights in the world of technology (EFF, demandprogress, freepress, nnsquad).
There's *nobody* that does (or did) a better job of talking about the *legal* issues in the world of technology. I think there is a need for a lazer-sharp focus on that.
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 13:27:07 GMT
Agreed, and by that, you're really saying we need a decent paralegal that can write. I doubt we're lacking people with technical chops, but we probably have less depth in terms of legal analysis.
How about a collaborative forum of volunteer writers where articles get promoted to public articles based on a poll of select contributors?
The hard part would be deciding who gets a vote without letting trolls or turfers to subvert things and without excluding too many legitimately interested members.
Let's say I'm a volunteer writer. I write a proposed article (the first post in a thread). You are another volunteer writer and you give me some proposed amendments. A third writer offers some additional material.
The original writer revises the initial text (the first post in the thread) with agreed-upon changes and adds a poll for voting members to decide whether to promote the article to be a public article (and give feedback, do corrections, etc), and after a predetermined amount of time (3 hours? a day?) we count the votes and if a certain percentage (51%?) think it should be promoted, then it becomes an article.
I see news as less formal than articles (and necessarily so, since timeliness is often paramount with news items), so maybe that just needs a moderator's approval?
We need somebody (or several somebodies) to chime in and say "I'm a person with legal expertise and I can help with analysis".
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 12:36:57 GMT
Looking for some input from those who are here so far.
Should we mirror the structure and content of Groklaw's history/documentation sections here? Should we just provide a place for updates on active litigation?
We have a place to discuss what to do next, which is great, but beginning to actually do it would be better and won't be possible without buy-in and agreement from folks who care.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 11:41:38 GMT
I would say that regardless of the answer, we could develop an etiquette on the subject that would help to distinguish between the two possibilities while allowing people to answer in the manner that they may be required to answer.
If someone (here) has NOT received an NSL, they should say that nobody has told them to say that they have not. If someone (here) HAS received an NSL, they should say that they have not.
Something like that.
|
|