Planting a forest

[Michael Allan]

I've been struggling with the planting part for a couple of days:
http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/G/p/vohall?oldid=6116#2._Grow_the_discussion
It's all wrong.  I think I took the wrong approach.  I finally
realized my mistake.  What I need first is to understand the practice
in the leafy canopy, because that's what we need to *grow into*.

I figure the basic unit of the canopy is a small group of 2-7 leaf
drafters around a variant pipe.

   (+)   (+)
     \    |  (+)
      \   |  /
       \  | /
        \ |/
         ( )-----(+)
          |
          |

They work on the draft in order to get it accepted in a patch relay.
It's not just a question of passing it to the candidate below (as we
originally thought), but rather to the entire branch or tree.  Either
a patch gets sunk pretty much everywhere it can possibly be applied
(goes "wild"), or it goes nowhere.  What follows from this?

  (a) The group doesn't need votes.  That won't help in a patch relay.

  (b) They need *generally agreeable* content in the variant draft.
      There's no other way to get the patch accepted by the pipe
      minders downstream.

  (c) Win or lose, most of the members will eventually move on to
      other variants.

  (d) Groups are somewhat ad hoc.  They don't always move as a unit,
      but may break up and reform in different combinations on
      different variants, depending on personal interest.

So I'm thinking, maybe this is *also* how it starts?  Differences at
the earliest stage would be:

  (s) Not many groups, ofc.  Initially there's just a single group
      working on a single variant in one of the component branches.

  (t) Almost no patches have been accepted yet.  The text is small.

  (u) Every patch is pretty much guaranteed to be accepted.  NOT GOOD

I think (t) is an advantage, because it makes the text accessible.
But (u) is a danger.  It's unrealistic.  We want a consensus that
everyone affected can agree to, not just one group.  So maybe this is
where we connect with forums?  We use them to:

  (f) Give us a quorum.  We ask for an informal thumbs up/down on each
      patch relay.  If the public doesn't like it, then we hold off.

  (g) Give us ideas for (b).

Maybe this kind of "public consultation" would always be a good idea,
even when the canopy was buzzing with activity.  It feels like the
right way to connect with a larger public.  Of course, we might also
expect to attract new users from forums.  But we'd never have to push
for that.  All we'd really need is (f) and (g).

Anyway, I wanted to share what I'm thinking before I try (once again)
to diagram it.  It may take a while.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/