john h trefry iv wrote:
“like i said, i have one such composition that could reside in a forum such as this, , we already have ‘texts’ right, hmm, are these things going to be initiated by ‘the wrk.grp’ or by ‘john’ or ‘ashley’ or ‘russell’, if they are pieces attributed to one of us maybe they are just accessed from our worker page, otherwise, /writings /compositions /ourtexts /features would seem applicable, would these be editable like our front page?”
your opening line contains the term ‘forum’, which, to me, is suggestive of your desires that this new section would be another place for dialogue, perhaps treating each paper as a mutable projekt or a sort of dialogue about dialogue. i feel that if the papers are going to have their origins in our personal interestscase 1, such as ‘ashley walks a lot and has noticed this’, or ‘john doesn’t like suvs’, then perhaps the papers should be closed elements - items that may instigate discussion, but are not products of it. i reckon that the features’ purpose is to make a statement of position to the masses, not necessarily to ‘work through some things’. in this case, the papers would not be made editable à la the front page. there could be, perhaps, a condition where one posts a paper, comments are made, and a new version of the paper is posted; in this case the authorship would be as open-ended as the desires of the original text allows - one author, no author, one author with comments cited.
another optioncase 2 would be a time when wrk.grp is asked to submit a paper or to include a statement with a competition entry or rfp. in this case, of course, the same document is tooled by multiple authors (as done clunkily during pentagon). for this, we could break out the wiki sections that are hiding on this site, which would allow constant work and citation of all changes. as far as the above ‘case 1′ is concerned, however, though i am a proponent of wiki, especially in the case when it draws from the entire internet as a knowledge base, i do not allow that it has the certainty or finality that would be in the features i envision. there’s a time to question, and there’s time enough for shoutin’.
regardless of how we treat the papers on the site, i don’t think we need a new posting area. i think the news is a suitable forum for discussing the features, as its history has covered site updates, queries on the future, and external miscellany. also, i don’t believe that the open- or closedness of the features and the place from which they are linked are mutually exclusive. i figure that there could be links to ‘john’s features’ as well as to ‘features, some by john’, without confusing the audience.
as far as the uri schema is concerned, i like ‘features’, as it makes it sound like wrk.grp has a journal - ‘journal’ defined as a magazine w/o ads, not as a diary[land].
also, i couldn’t find russell’s page; did you link it properly?
