On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, isaac wrote: > > actually, my prefered process would be a merger(like i mentioned > > before) of the administrative and discussion lists. > > q. why not merge thesite list in too? > a. because the resulting inbox would be a fucking mess. a2. they dont share a lot of cross-disciplinary(heh thats not even close i'm sure) skills & responsibilities either. i dont think i said i'd want to merge thesite into there either, but don't wanna take anything out of context. > when i'm talking about future direction on theforum, i don't want to be > dodging threads about why we should deny articleX. like i said, deny it for the reasons it should be denied. no need to dodge anything, this is part of being in administration IMO - dealing with tough issues from time to time > admin and direction are two different functions. just like implementation is > a third function. i think that they should be separate. but there's nothing > to say that someone can't be a member of each or any. (there is now, but > we'll change that.) q: who's provided direction for the last 3 years? a: admin > it's not something i'd thought of. but at some stage, someone has to assign > that priv. currently it's probably you. assigning it may be a one or two person task. deciding to assign it would not be. > it's not something people "can do on their own" or should. they can choose > to get involved. they can say "yes, i've watched the admin list for a week > now, and i'm ready to help out. do you trust me?" obviously it would take more than watching to attain the level of trust. > at that point, someone has to assign that priv. if it's not "one group", > it's one or two people. why not have it be that group? (whether by using a > voting app or a +1 as has been used to induct admins in the past). why have it be any group but the group who's actions and future is going to be affected by the person who's volunteering to help. i can point to a very good example of a highly respected evolt member who didnt get on admin because 1-3 people didnt like his positions on thechat list. no names as i wont embarss those involved, but its a good example why a closed group can't make decisions as to who is included in the 'public'(this) group. > > well if it *is* a quite poor article, it is. nothing you can do about it i > > guess. that shows up by the fact that it got denied. what it would also do > > the future admin archives can be opened (older ones can't for reasons > expressed by adrian and javier so far). we'll just have to use tact when > discussing things like that. it'll also mean that conversation regarding > potential RichGibson's will also be open. as i said above, i'm all for that. i think potential richgibsons(for those not in the know, the *only* person we've ever banned from evolt. that was a month after thelist started too. ironically, he's user #8 or something.. heh) may understand the decision a bit more if it were to come from a represenative group of evolt members, not a closed group of them. > where i think we're disagreeing is "who assigns that priv?" its not assigned. its *earned*. is it an absolute thing that we can point to and say, "this is what you have to do to gain 'trust'". its not a document or a process or anything you can nail down. its just that point where a community memmber becomes respected by the rest of the community. trusted. i really think thats the coolest thing we're takling about here! giving people the *opportunity* to prove it - not to a group behind closed doors, not for the wrong reasons - in a place where everyone that makes that judgement call can see it. remember that one mailing lista couple years ago that only posted 'selected' posts back to the mailing list? i hated that idea :) let the community as a *community* decide whats best - not some guy or girl or group of guys and girls standing behind a curtain pulling the leveers that decide what the community gets to see based on what they think the community wants or needs or should see. anyways, enough of that kinda talk.. makes me feel like i'm 22 again :) .djc.