CZ Talk:Proposals/Subgroups in addition to Workgroups?

For historical background, or more detailed discussion, there is a forum thread on this topic titled sub-workgroups.

Are subgroup Editors' names and Authors's names automatically found and listed?

Chris, I have not yet digested all of the proposal, but I want to congratulate you on having finally made the proposal ... as you know, I have been "pushing" for this for almost a year. So please accept my thanks.

I do have one question. As I recall, and I may be wrong ... I think that I manually entered my name in Chemical Engineering subgroup's Category:Chemical Engineering Editors and I manually added the 4 authors' names into Category:Chemical Engineering Authors. Will that now be done automatically? Will the names be picked up somehow from users' pages?

Right now, users' pages only list the main workgroups for which each user wants to be an author or editor. Is it going to be up to each user to seek out what subgroups for which he/she wants to be listed as an author or editor at the bottom of his/her user page so that info can be automatically picked up?

Milton Beychok 07:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The section that deals with this issue is How_to_invite_your_colleagues. I think you might misremember adding the names manually to the category page (or I misunderstand you). I believe what you did was add the subgroup category to their user pages. In short, your last paragraph is exactly what I had envisaged. Maybe you could rephrase the section in the proposal to make more sense? Chris Day 16:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Other thing is I myself would rather be and editor at Botany subgroup only than to the whole Biology scope, thus is this option being contemplated or an editor must be listed all the way down? Dalton Holland Baptista 14:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dalton, at this point, there is no proposal to have workgroup-specific editors. I don't think it wise to spread ourselves so thin. I think that you should apply for editorship in Biology. We could always use another active participant like yourself. Russell D. Jones 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From Main Proposal Page

I think its a good idea, but might be unnecessary considering how inactive we are. After all, I'm one to talk, haven't been around here properly since last May. Its definately something that could be used in the future, even as a cousin of the Wikipedia project pages. Denis Cavanagh 15:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Denis, I agree with your assessment. I think the one good reason for doing this now is that it is good to have the mechanism in place for when its ready to be used efficiently. Once it is in place we will be able to fine tune it so it is really ready for prime time. Also, we do have a few users who are already making good use of it. The clear example is chemical engineering. In that case i think it could also be used as a recruitment tool. I might well set up a genetics version too, if nothing else to organise some of my thoughts with respect to topics for class. Chris Day 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Chris that it would be good to have this mechanism in place now for the reason he gives above and for all the reasons that have been presented in the lengthy Forums discussion of this subject. Milton Beychok 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for barging in! Unaware a discussion had taken place on the forums. Chris offers a very persuading rationale and I do support this. Denis Cavanagh 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed. In fact, I should link to the relevant discussion in the forum, that makes a lot of sense. Chris Day 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the redundancy question: it seems to me that redundancy would be controlled by the editors. They would have the responsibility to reject redundant subgroups. I'd also like to see some threshold of need met, say two (three?) editors from each group approving the subgroup before creation. Russell D. Jones 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell, I agree with you that Workgroup editors should control what subgroups need to be created. However, as matters stand now, it is difficult to find two or three active editors in some workgroups. For example, the Engineering Workgroup has only two active editors at best. One of the reasons for creating subgroups is that it might encourage more editors to participate. But for the time being, I suggest that one or two active (and I emphasize the word active) editors be all that is needed to endorse the creation of a subgroup. Milton Beychok 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the section above #Which subgroups are needed? we write that "Editors decide which subgroups are relevant". Given the discussion above why don't we make this more specific, as suggested by Milt above. I think his suggested requirement for active editors is a valid one. Just to clarify though, Milt suggests that two editors should be required to start a subgroup whereas in this proposal it would be two editors are required to endorse a subgroup. I know this is a subtle difference but i think there is quite a significant distinction. When i wrote this i was thinking that anyone could start a subgroup and then, if it was seen to have a useful role, the better ones would "win" endorsement from editors. My reasoning here is sometimes it is not clear what we need and thus a test period might be desirable to see how it works out. Just a thought. Chris Day 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworking Overall Workgroup Policy Pages

I'd like to see most of this page (once this policy is adopted), minus the discussion, moved to CZ:Subgroups. Should there also be a subgroups page started like CZ:Workgroups or could that be handled by a category page? CZ:Workgroups right now is just a list of workgroups. I think CZ:Notes on launching workgroups should be moved to CZ:Workgroups because that is where the policy on workgroups should be. Then CZ:Subgroups could be branched from there (e.g., "See also CZ:Subgroups"). Russell D. Jones 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Name: Subgroup or Subworkgroup?

Should the name be subgroup or subworkgroup? In the end I favoured subgroup since it was shorter but maybe subworkgroup is more descriptive? Chris Day 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Subworkgroup is more descriptive and accurate as it is clear that it is an under-level of a workgroup. But subgroup is shorter. CZ does not have "Groups," as far as I know, other than "Workgroups," so there wouldn't be any confusion. Maybe someday "Newsgroups," "authorgroups," etc., which becomes an argument to reserve "subgroup". Once choice is made, though, nearly impossible to change without bot. I'm okay with "subgroup" too. I'll concur with Milt on this and leave it to you. Russell D. Jones 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with subgroup. One of my reasons for switching from subworkgroup originally was that there is an implication (and misconception in the discussion on the forum) that a subworkgroup is a subset of a specific workgroup. Given the emphasis on multidisciplinary interaction we want to encourage between workgroups, subgroup might be a less confusing name. Chris Day 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Next Step

I think this prop is mostly baked. Chris, you've listed "Implementation" as the next step. Does this mean that no CZ decision-making body need sanction this proposal? Russell D. Jones 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I guess I meant everything is in place for implementation. I assume this will need to go for a vote. Chris Day 14:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we send it to the ed council? Russell D. Jones 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is almost ready. Let's just finalize the name and the role of editors and rewrite the proposal to reflect that consensus (see my two comments above). Then it is ready to got to the EC. Chris Day 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no preferences. Subworkgroups is a bit more cumbersome but it is more descriptive. I leave it to you, Chris. As for the role of editors, whether they start or endorse (after a test period) the subgroup (or subworkgroup), I still think is should be two "active" editors ... and I hope we don't get involved with trying to define "active" editors. Milton Beychok 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal deletion/approval of a Subgroup?

(undent) Name: up to Chris. Role of editors: To (1) sign on to approve subgroup (add names to template); (2) one editor (at least) from each covering workgroup; (3) one of the approving editors will place subgroup in some sort of subgroup list (like the article approval system, somebody has to go and change article status; we should have same or similar procedure for subgroup approval). (4) We should also have a policy for subgroup elimination (e.g., how is a subgroup destroyed; should be harder than creating a group). But this can be later amendment to policy. Russell D. Jones 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there could be an approval subpage to document the affiliation endorsements from editors (CZ:Chemical Engineering Subgroup/Approval, CZ:Chemical Engineering Subgroup/Affiliation or similar). As to an approval-like process, this could be done using a metadata page similar to clusters but would such a formal process be required? Or could it be managed on the approval/affiliation subpage or even the subgroup talk page. Possibly the proceedure should involve an announcement on the workgroup mailing list with x days for objections to be lodged with regard to an affilitation? If there are two editors in agreement then the subgroup will become affilitated with the workgroup. As to delisting a workgroups affiliation from the subgroup, would this not just be a reverse of the same process?

As to deleting a subgroup that does not flourish, i.e. no chance of affiliation with any workgroup, I'm not sure what the process would be. Maybe the best solution is cold storage if no workgroups show an interest after 3 months? Recruitment from cold storage is always possible IF editors from a particular workgroup wish to endorse a formal affiliation with the defunct subgroup. Chris Day 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sub-subgroups?

(undent)   What about Sub-Subgroups? e.g. {{Subgroup|History of Biology|History of Science|History|Biology}} or {{Subgroup|History of Chemical Engineering|History|Chemical Engineering}}. Plus, I just saw another problem. No "Science" workgroup. So how do we create a "history of science" subgroup? Russell D. Jones 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view History of Science does not need to be a subgroup of science. I would envisage it being {{Subgroup|History of Science|History|Biology|Chemistry|Physics}} Now comes the problem, we only have four slots for the affiliated workgroups, clearly more sciences will want to be affiliated with such as subgroup. So maybe we need more? Maybe there should be no limit?

With regard to sub-subgroups, I had never considered this need. Thinking about it a bit I'm not sure there is a need. Using your example, why not {{Subgroup|History of Chemical Engineering|History|Engineering}}? I'll think about this some more. Chris Day 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that incorporating sub-subgroups into this proposal would be biting off much more than we can chew and would probably create a good bit of opposition. Let's get the subgroups accepted first and leave sub-subgroups to be considered at some future date after we have digested the subgroups. Milton Beychok 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think these are wise words. Also, in time we may well realise it is not necessary. Chris Day 05:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I was just exploring possibilities. It can always be re-addressed at a later date. Russell D. Jones 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemical Engineering Example

To log editor approval, I assumed that there would be someplace where the approving editors would log their approval. In the Chemical Engineering example, the subgroup points to the Chemical Engineering article. It would seem then that the approving editors should (would) also work on the subgroup main article and get that through approval. Does this mean then that in order for the subgroup to be approved, the subgroup main article has to be approved? Russell D. Jones 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea (lead article should be approved), this might well be the carrot that leads to a strong cohesive group and subsequent workgroup affiliation as opposed to a less sound idea. Chris Day 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha. So is this then the proposed approval process? Russell D. Jones 13:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy Proposal

Chris & Milt, I've taken the proposal and re-written it as proposed policy. The way that I have crafted the resolution means that the "action" that the ed council will take upon approval is to move that proposal page to the CZ namespace as approved policy. The "policy" is different from the "proposal" in that they are directed towards different audiences: the proposal towards the ed council, the policy towards all citizens. Thus, there are items in the proposal (i.e., to persuade the ed council to adopt) that are not needed in the policy. I realize that this may create some redundancy (!), but I hope that we can edit the policy and get the mechanics and language in an approvable form. Thanks. Russell D. Jones 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Subgroup Approval

We had discussed the approval process as having at least one editor from each workgroup approve the subgroup as a means to get it going. We have also discussed that the subgroup should begin writing the subgroup main article and moving that towards approval too. Given the approval process, this means that it takes at least five editors to formally approve a subgroup (two [assuming a minimum cross-sectioned subgroup] editors to create the subgroup; three more to approve the main article [assuming the two creators worked/authored the main article]. Is this too much?
  In practice, I expect that subgroups would be created and main articles started but not approved. (I note also that CE was approved with only two editors.) This is acceptable, I think. Thoughts? Russell D. Jones 13:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we do not want too many editors to get a subgroup approved. The subgroups main article could actually be approved by one editor IF that editor had no involvement in writing it. If one other editor agrees that the subgroup is a good idea then it could be affiliated to the workgroup too. So theoretically only two are required. I think the maximum of editors required would be three in the scenario where editors are also active in writing the Subgroups main article. It sounds as if you are thinking that the editors that approve affiliation need to be distinct from those that approve the subgroups main article? I had not thought of it that way. Chris Day 15:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see any benefits to "approval" except in the prestige of being an "approved" subgroup. Anybody can create subgroups, affiliate articles to subgroups, write articles under the subgroup category. There really isn't any benefit to being "approved." I think the reason we came down this road was that we were trying to figure out a way that editors could exercise editorial control over redundant subgroups. Russell D. Jones 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Subgroup or Workgroup

Chris, here's another practical matter. Suppose I create an article in the Chemical Engineering subgroup and am about to fill out the metadata. Would Chemical Engineering go in as Cat1, Cat2, Cat3 or would it go in Sub1, Sub2, Sub3? What's the difference? If there is no difference, is it then possible to affiliate an article to six workgroups? Russell D. Jones 13:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A subgroup could be one of three, Sub1-3. Only workgroups names can be used for the Cat1-3 fields. At present there is a maximum of three workgroups and three subgroups per cluster. It would not be catastrophic if they got mixed up but the subpages template would not function correctly in placing categories. Chris Day 14:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following. Does the subpages template reference the Sub1-3 fields but not the Cat1-3 fields? Russell D. Jones 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Affiliation

I just added a new section outlining my interpretation of our discussions to date with regard to affiliation (See at /Subgroups and at /Subgroups in addition to Workgroups?). See what you think. Chris Day 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay. I wonder about the last paragraph though. I'm not sure exactly what "cold storage" is. Does it need to be defined here? Would the policy work just as well without a discussion of what happens to dead subgroups? Russell D. Jones 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another problem I just realized about "de-affiliating" a subgroup is that there will be a bunch of articles tagged as belonging to the subgroup that will point the article to a dead subgroup. Does de-affiliation mean that all of the affiliated articles' metadata sub1-3 fields be cleared? Sounds like a job for a bot.

Do we really need to address de-affiliation right now in this policy? I know we've discussed it some, and it's good that we have devoted some thought to it. But I'm thinking now that perhaps some experience with subgroups would give us a better handle on the issues associated with de-affiliation. Or is there a more compelling reason that I'm missing why we should have, at least, an initial de-affiliation policy? Russell D. Jones 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, then I'll stop. I see now that we are contemplating three situations where editors should step in to control subgroups. First is where authors have created redundant subgroups, second is to approve subgroups, and third is where the subgroup has died. In the first case, the editors should work towards some sort of consensus or compromise whereby the redundancy can be eliminated and articles affiliated to the agreed-upon subgroup. The second case we've pretty much ironed out. In the third case, the editor would have the subgroup "archived in cold storage." In practical terms (I guess I'm repeating myself now), what does "archived in cold storage" mean? I would prefer that if the content is good that no article or subgroup be deleted; and going through a bunch of articles just to change a field sounds tedious. Russell D. Jones 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Who can start a subgroup?

This is an interesting difference in perspective I found while editing the proposal. I removed the following text from the section on starting a subgroup:

"Once at least one editor from each affiliated workgroup (or two from one workgroup) have agreed to sponsor the subgroup, one of those affiliated editors should complete the subgroup creation process. To do this, the sponsoring editor should..."

My original idea was to allow authors to start any Subgroup they wished to encourage creativity but to have oversight from editors with regard to affiliation. Affiliation is the key since any Subgroup without affiliated workgroups is not "official". If we go with the text above though, we are asking the authors to wait for editors before they can start a subgroup.

While I can see there might be a lot of unofficial subgroups out there if we give authors this much room, I still think it is worth allowing more freedom. We could always have a category that is added to a subgroup with no affiliations and purge them every so often (place into cold storage). As long as the authors understand that without affiliation this is a risk I think we will not have a problem. Thoughts? Chris Day 16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes! I like the idea of having authors initiate subgroups. As a bottom-up approach this would encourage more involvement. So:

1. Any citizen can create a subgroup by creating the pages under subgroup creation; thus authors can affiliate the subgroup with workgroups.
2. Approval of subgroup affiliation is done by affiliated workgroup editors on the Subgroup/Approval subpage.
3. Subgroup approval is not a requisite for affiliating articles with the subgroup (i.e., entering the subgroup in the article's metadata sub1-3 fields).
4. Further legitimation of the subgroup occurs when the Subgroup Main Article is approved by affiliated editors.

Russell D. Jones 14:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)