In which she launches her proposal

[zeborah]

I was going to jump in with my full proposal which included an introduction to me, how I'm going to approach this, what I know for sure and what I don't know for sure, a request for discussion and a note about commenting -- because I was planning on being ambitious, bold, and likely clueless, and contacting groups who might be interested with the link to here so they can take part in the discussion of shaping it.

But then I got cold feet due to potential for cluelessness, so here's the short version, and I'll post the long version if it meets with general approval.

Basically, I'm going to set up this group even if it consists of me, myself and I, because if those are the only people who turn up then it's not much work and if more people turn up all the better. And I'm going to do it by acting as Benevolent Dictator (ie listening to all opinions and then choosing the path that seems likeliest to make the most number of people happy) for goals and technical stuff, and then turning it over to a moderation panel (which may or may not include me) for rule-making and maintenance.

So, the group will be:
1) focused on discussing the process of writing. In the interests of discussion (and because it's true) members will always acknowledge that there are many ways to write: none are obligatory and none are incorrect.

2) a space where members:
a) respect women, members of the LGBT community, people of colour, people with disabilities, people with non-nuclear family structures, people of different religions and of no religion, and others;
b) acknowledge that these groups are often not respected in our society and thus in fiction, both in obvious concrete ways and in subtle abstract ways;
c) may sometimes be clueless, but will always be open to correction about their cluelessness being pointed out, and will endeavour to respond respectfully and learn from correction this;
d) will undertake to correct point out when other members display cluelessness in order to keep the environment friendly.

Thus, discussion about plotting, RSI, pens, outlines, punctuation, etc will be on-topic; so will be discussion about cultural appropriation, sexist language, homophobic tropes, depictions of religion, etc. Also cats and chocolate.

It will have to be moderated in order to be seen as something safe enough to put effort into; I think probably best by a panel of people from different groups.

Is this a satisfactory vision?
And if so, is it best to get a basic group structure in place before putting the word out (in which case we need to start talking about technical details and moderation), or is it best to get the word out so everyone can take part in creating it and feel like they own it (in which case we need to do that first)?

(And anyone who can help me not be clueless, much appreciated.)

Comments

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Sounds good to me.

Personally I feel that before the word is put about too widely, you need some idea of a proposed group structure and the technicalities, otherwise the whole thing might just bog down in endless discussion.

Perhaps a small nucleus of a few people to get the thing off the ground and then throw it open to all who might be interested?

[pariyal.livejournal.com]

Terms sound down-to-earth and reasonable. I agree with Helen that we should have a team to get the thing off the ground first (hereby I volunteer once again). annafdd has something up that some of us are already on (here (http://www.crown.annafdd.co.uk")), and that I'd very much like to try using, if only to start something new, not tied to a group already in existence that not everybody is a(n active) member of like LJ.

(oh, and for the record: I'm white, female, bi, living in a traditional family unit, and a member of a locally non-mainstream Christian religion; two and a half out of five should be good enough)

[pariyal.livejournal.com]

That's http://crown.annafdd.co.uk (http://crown.annafdd.co.uk). Either I (bad me!) or LJ (bad LJ!) snuck 'www' in so the link doesn't work.

[brownnicky.livejournal.com]

Good luck with it! (Very much not my thing.)

[sciamanna.livejournal.com]

Sounds good.

On the technical side -- for myself, I'd much prefer something like a newsgroup or a mailing list than a web forum -- or at least something that can be *used* like a ng/ml. But I'll go with web if I have to :-)

[oneironaut.livejournal.com]

Where do I sign?

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

It sounds good. It does look like there are more things being worked on, such as the 9and60ways group and what Anna's working on, so I guess I'll just see what the majority decide to go with, and then join up. Meanwhile, I'll keep with 9and60ways and see how that goes until anything new becomes the "it" place to hang out.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I find 'correct other members' a little too strong and would prefer 'point out' because my assumption is that everybody who takes part will declare their willingness to try; and when you're trying to do the right thing, you don't want correction, you want someone to engage you in a dialogue. Or at least I do.

And I am hoping that the moderation can be relatively light-handed, but yes, I am very much interested in a safe space in the respect that there will not be a lot of people coming into the room and disrupting the things I am interested in and then telling me that it's a free country and they have a right to.

[zeborah]

Thanks - I've made the change you suggest.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I'd also prefer something I could read on my newsreader, I find threading (and stuff I've read being marked read) extremely useful for longer more complex discussions and I don't think I've seen a web interface that had those benefits.

Also, I'm not planning on writing fiction at the moment :-/.