An idea on saving socially important builds

Good idea. I was thinking, too, how every build wouldn't need to be up all year: there could be a rotation. That would make the appearance of each build an event. May might be the Temple of Hathor, June could be the Mushroom Kingdom, etc.

I think this is a wonderful idea, Juro.

One thing I would be very careful with is who are made group officers, considering the troubles some have experienced with rogue officers selling off or stealing group land, deleting or returning builds, etc... I would suggest keeping only as many officers as are absolutely needed (1? 2?) and all other benefactors being on even footing as Members.

Not only will this help lessen the danger of rogue officers, it might (hopefully) remove some reluctance from people who don't want so-and-so lording it over them. (If someone has a huge problem with not being made an officer, I probably wouldn't trust them with it anyway.)

I think this is a great idea too, and would be willing to donate a bit of tier.

I had thoughts along these lines as well.

I was thinking there needs to be something like this also, after the Temple of Hathor went. I have a small amount of tier I would donate.

That would be cool, but if someone with the reputation of yourself was officer, or for example, Lordfly, I'd have every confidence in their good intentions and judgement, and that tier I might donate would be used wisely.

Eh... nevermind.

Wasn't something similar done for this with Shenji's Apartment in Dore? After a while, it was turned into an Orientation Island replca. Perhaps repurposing these builds for SL education could be a possibility.

Regards,

-Flip

Uh yeah, you might want a group with a less controversial officer.

Good Afternoon,
I'm Glad someone is thinking about this topic, I think More should.
Some time ago, an Iraq War memorial was created, and dedicated to All those who have Lost their Lives in the Gulf War Conflict. It doesn't take sides, and No Political discussions are allowed there. It is a memorial, Not a Forum. The creator for reasons of his own, could No longer Maintain the site Upon which it rested, and it was in imminant danger of being Lost to all those for whom it Holds relevance. A sad developement Indeed. Toy LaFollette Volenteered some Land she owned in Crooked to Preserve the Monument. (Applauds Toy)and it Stands today for those who would Remember.

In a way, SL forms it's own history, and it's own land Marks. I Understand that LL it's self cannot Make room to preserve everything that Should be Preserved, Nor, i think, Should they. It is Our world. We created it, We make it's History, and Culture, and it is Up to Us to Preserve it as Toy has done.

So, the Question is, Who decides What constitutes a Socially Important site? What gets saved, and what is allowed to Pass? In RL, there are Land Conservencies, and Heritage Boards that Pick and Choose Properties to preserve for Posterity. Of course, Each has it's own criteria, and of course Each is Limited by it's Budget. In SL,, If sites are to be preserved, a Number of such Boards chould be Formed, and resources pooled. Some groups may see value in a site where another would pass it over. A site in Danger of disappearing could petition,(Or have Interested Parties petition on behalf of it) for Status, and preservation. More than One conservancy Increases a sites Chances at preservation, And Guarantees a More universal representation of sites to be preserved

Just a thought. Your Opinion?
Angelique.

I don't think all that many builds should be rezzed at one time lest the grid become a necropolis - well, that certainly overstating it Anyway, someone with a solid aesthetic sense who has seen a lot - Shack Dougall springs to mind - would be the kind of person who might serve on a board that oversees this effort.

It's a worthwhile, but complicated issue. For example, I found myself having mixed emotions over the Seven Wonders thread. On the one hand, it was encouraging that different builds in Second Life had made such a positive impact, but I also got the sense of how fragmented and isolated our individual experiences of Second Life are. Each of us only has a small picture of the daily fabric of the world and each of us has personal bias no matter how hard we try to eliminate it.

In the context of this thread, I think it is most important to preserve builds and other works. Displaying them is an important, but secondary concern. RL museums come to mind where only a small percentage of the collected works are ever on permanent display. But all of the works are there to be studied in a controlled manner with proper permission.

A virtual world such as Second Life actually gives us a lot more flexibility than a RL museum would have. Since a build is really nothing more than data, there can be multiple copies of it in various inventories as well as different copies of it in the world. In addition, each of these copies can have different permissions associated with them.

So, when I think of this, I see two different, but essential roles.

One role is that of librarian: preservation, restoration, classification, indexing, and distribution.

The other role is that of host: to place the works in a "permanent" environment for their enjoyment by the public.

And in my way of thinking, these two roles should be separate, performed by distinctly separate groups.

Ideally, the library would have a full perm version of the work in question. Because it is difficult to get all the pieces of a large build, it is likely that some restoration will be necessary, as well as, work packaging the build for easy rezzing. The library also needs a system of classification and indexing to enable them to retrieve a set of works based on different criteria. And the library needs multiple distribution mechanisms.

After preservation, the next consideration is distribution. And again, a virtual world gives us lots of flexibility. The devil is in the details and I don't pretend to have thought through all of this. But it seems like there are different categories of distribution.

It seems that most people immediately think about hosting, i.e., a group that displays one or more works for an extended period of time. But a good argument can be made for a more open distribution mechanism similar to a public library. In general, there will always be more works than can be displayed at any given time and the problem will get worse, not better over time.

So, at least part of the library should be open to the public, perhaps allowing no-mod/no-copy/trans copies of some items to be checked out and requiring that they be returned to the library to ensure that the number of outstanding copies is kept within some limit. This would allow individuals to rez works that host groups are unable to keep on permanent display.

An open library is thorny from a technical perspective. The permission system in SL doesn't fit completely. Large builds can't be linked as a single object, etc. So some hard thinking needs to be done to see exactly how this can be done. Nevertheless, it's important to consider and might be the only way in the future that we can ensure that all of these works have a chance to be seen. It also removes the bias of the host, allowing the individual to choose what they want to see.

Well, anyway, these are my thoughts at the moment. subject to change. your mileage may vary.

EDIT: Spooky! I just noticed that this was post #666 for me.

Er, you had me until right there.

Yeah you definitely need someone a lot less controversial, smarmy, and judgemental running something so important. It'd be like giving me Jeska's forum moderation privileges. Whoops, I just permabanned everyone's name starting with F!

That being said, I'd almost kill to get the Tan clock tower up again.

Heh, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my track record for getting philanthropic projects off the ground are pretty much near horrible.

I'd like to sit in as a disembodied advisor, or something, but giving me any sort of authority or position where stuff needs to get done for free... yeah.... sadly I don't have the time to do it anymore.

Yeah I agree. I think there would be a fairly lenghtly list of builders who wouldn't get a fair shake under that management.

Yup, and I'm sure that's the case for many. It was more a statement to the effect that I have more faith in some residents' intentions and judgements than maybe the Lindens, based on their body of work, reputations and general contribution to SL. Lindens can be more impartial sure, but they are also more detached due to the scale of SL these days (with exceptions), and in a way, residents are far more accountable. Some form of LL support would be very good though.

It would be a huge task for any one person... I think it would need a committee of sorts. I'd love to see it happen though, and would support it in any way I could. SL is so transient in nature, but there are definitely some works of significance worthy of preservation. Enough people in a group, and it could have its own forum, where suggestions for candidates could be discussed, and ways of achieving their preservation. I dunno, I just like history and great builds.

My extra tier has been supporting a historic build for over a year. It's gets the odd visit from garden shoppers, but I don't know that anyone has ever visited it for historic or nastalgic reasons.

Perhaps I should put out a voting box or something that people can touch and say "I've been here." Oh! We need T-shirts don't we yes that's the ticket.