(questions re implied hierarchy?) |
(Comments on comments) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Philralph, I wrote the bit about the FAQ. I didn't want to presume I had the answers so I put in "approved" and "official", maybe I should have used other words. It was late. ;) | |||
[[User:Bjelkeman|Bjelkeman]] 15.05, 1 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:05, 1 July 2010
We should probably use the discussions page for some (or all) of the answers to the questions which come up.
FAQ
How long should the essays be? Short about 500-800 words
When should the essays be completed? In 100 days Thursday, 7 October 2010.
Editorial
For what audience is this book intended? Academics? Politicians? Thinkers? Doers? The proverbial 'general public'? – impacts the tone and style of the writing.
Approach: are the essays presenting a narrative vision of how the future could be; setting out an argument for how it should be; or something else?
The book
If more than 99 (or 100) articles are proposed or written, how will the 99 be chosen? Will this be done by consensus of those taking part? What will happen to those not chosen? These question still apply even if a sequence of books envisaged. Will there be any sort of 'quality' filtering, if so how and by whom? FAQ: to be approved by whom?, 'official' means what exactly? Abstracts: "we'll do some more work on...", who is the 'we'? Is some sort of 'specialized' sub-group (and so hierarchy?) implied? (Suggest best if as much openness and 'up-front'ness about these sorts of questions as possible Philralph 08:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC))
Philralph, I wrote the bit about the FAQ. I didn't want to presume I had the answers so I put in "approved" and "official", maybe I should have used other words. It was late. ;)
Bjelkeman 15.05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)