My apologies if this makes a mess. I am testing some stuff.
And now updating through the web
Ok, cool. The linkage between POUND and LiveJournal is now sufficiently smart that already-posted entries can be updated from POUND (either the CL tool or the web interface), with changes propogating to LJ. Cacheing the livejournal entryid works and is a pretty good way to do things. I am not sure if it would be smarter to provide topic links that point back to POUND's topics page (wrapping the entry text with extra, always-present stuff) or if the LJ interface should create topics on the fly to match the topics POUND manages. In one approach, posting to LJ is treated as a less important second-class choice, in another, it's considered a primary good. I suppose I could do both, maybe making both things options. I'm trying to keep the LJ code in its own module, and so much as convenient, in its own tables in the database, to make it easier to later genericise the interface so at some point I can also sync to myspace, blogger, and other blogging platforms.
As I mentioned before, I think the wrong person was elected to the Wikipedia Foundation. As I am apt to do when I think it's important enough, I spoke up on IRC on why I think he's wrong (I'm not alone on this - some others have resigned from non-board parts of the foundation with his election, and others are at least upset). It eventually led to a long conversation with him on why I think he's done and will do harm to the Foundation - we disagree both on what the election should be like and what candidates should be. I feel that election should be a low-key list of qualifications without attempts to "sell oneself" to the masses, and judging by everyone else's platforms, that was how most people saw things. I further think that by and large the statements should be a light wrapper on one's history with the project, and that people should be focusing on the character of the person, their history of involvement in the project, and their relevant skills. His notion of things is that people should work strongly to sell themselves, that things like endorsements are appropriate, and that things should be much more competitive - when I pointed out that I helped another candidate translate their platform to fluent English, he said he would not have done the same. To him, the campaign promises he made are the meat of the election. I find this frustrating, because it, I think, will lead to a transformation of elections and change the nature of the board to one that will butt heads as a matter of course rather than one that will mostly quietly organise things with butting of heads as an occasional necessary task. We also wildly disagree on the role of ego in being suitable for the board (and in general) - I think by and large board members should be seen as like the top level of civil servants, with the leadership/disagreements being only occasionally necessary. He called my emphasis on humility and quiet service initially a religious value, and when I pointed out I'm atheist, a medieval attitude. All in all, it was a frustrating conversation, partly because of constant ad hominem attacks mixed into discussions. I know he's a bright guy, but he's intensely irritating. *whistles* not at all like I've ever been accused of being *whistles*