[Theforum] Re: Article Approvals

Warden, Matt mwarden at mattwarden.com
Fri Nov 30 21:03:48 CST 2001

Amanda wrote:
>> the thing that matt and i are saying is we trust these people 
>> who've volunteered. i seriously doubt any one of them, or 
>> anyone on this list, would purposly fuck shit up..
>> .djc.
>I think it's nice that you two are willing to go on your gut instinct.
>That's cool and you both have registered again and again that that is
>your gut instinct. If we could merge your gut instinct with other's
>needs for something more formal then we'd be golden, right?
>Let's do that.

I gotta admit that i'm not sure what you just said, but...

a) I'm not going on any guy instinct
b) My views on this do not totally reflect dan's; they are just closer to
dan's than, say, isaac's.
c) I don't understand your comment about formality

I don't think this has anything to do with formality. It looks like this
comes down to what happens with Joe User wants to help out with the
community. Do we let him after certain safegaurds have been added to our
CMS? Or do we take a vote of [insert entity] and only allow the
volunteerism if [insert entity] thinks it's ok?

And I'm *really* against this if the [insert entity] becomes
"admin". Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. If that was anyone,
it'd be theforum, IMO.

Personally, I'm for inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. Admin has no more
right to judge others' participation than Joe User does. *THE ONLY* real
basis for this would be if security is an issue. *cough* CMS changes
*cough* And, until we figure out those changes, sure.. we'd stick with
people we know won't fuck shit up. but after we have the safegaurds, there
just is no need to be as careful and exclude people because we haven't had
a chance to do a background check on them.

I'd like to leave the possibility for someone who can ONLY contribute to
evolt by, say, editing the grammar of articles and nothing else. maybe
it's someone is pro-free-ideas but has no friggin clue about anything
related to the Web. But, this guy still wants to help out... and we can
let him. If we're going by this former participation thing (while I do
see the merit in that as a motivator for greater participation just like
m.e.o accounts), he'll never be able to get involved in evolt.

[and please let's not respond to the above paragraph like that was my
entire reasoning for having the point of view I do. Just an example.]

Amanda wrote:
>I just want to interject here that my trust in regards to the admin
>group was seriously rocked over the past six months. I've "known" some
>of you for five years now and been involved with evolt for over three
>years. So, what does that say that I was faced with the stark
>realization that all of a sudden, I didn't trust?

Excellent point. Maybe we should... put in some safegaurds into our CMS
for some CYAing. And, if we make it so bad stuff can't happen, then what's
the point in the review/election process in the first place?

Just a thought.

Amanda wrote:
>I would like us to step away from the trust line

Can you clarify to me what you think we should do? I guess I may have
misread you before, but I thought you wanted admin to delegate who can be

.jeff wrote:
>why do you ask?  well, if you're not subbed to the list there's no way to
>know if you're out in the dark or not about something that's being
>discussed on the list that may be holding up execution on something.  if
>you want to be involved with those day-to-day tasks, participate (reading
>archives does *not* equal participation) on the admin list.  otherwise i
>almost see no need to have priv >= 3 if you're not subbed to admin

Ok, my words have been taken out of context. The context was that someone
said the membership list of the admin list are the admins. I'm not on that
list because I follow the archives, just like I do for this list. I didn't
mean to suggest that I do administrative tasks blindly without watching
the admin list at all.

But we digress...



More information about the theforum mailing list