[Theforum] m.e.o. management (was: meo barriers)

[Marlene Bruce]

Lach,

>  > 1.  Who should be managing m.e.o.? We need to establish a management
>>  body.
>
>More specifically, which group should a sub group for this purpose be
>formed under for. I would say it would probably be content, but it could
>fall in the sysadmin area a little too.

+1 and Right-o. It's content on our servers. (There's also an issue
of bandwidth, but that is only because it relates to content.)

>  > 2.  We need to readdress the written admission policy for m.e.o..
>>  Several of us have agreed that it needs to be better defined.
>
>+1 - content group would be in charge of looking after this, I would say.

+1. I should probably add myself to that group too. (Done.)

>  > 3.  The management criteria need to be defined (I don't know that one
>  > currently exists in any written form). [snip]
>
>I assume the TOS would be used for this purpose. If we have criteria for
>getting rid of people it should be open so that we can say 'you agreed to
>this when you signed on'.

+1. Seems this is all part of content too.

>  > 4.  We need the m.e.o. management group to assess current usage of
>>  m.e.o., address issues of misuse, and inform m.e.o. account holders of
>>  changes to our policies as they arise.
>
>+1

And I suppose this is where a sub-group really needs to come in (not
that all that m.e.o. content work wouldn't itself constitute a
sub-group).

>  > * If m.e.o. account holders aren't using their space for the intended
>  > purpose, we should open that space up to those who could really use it.
>
>Except politely. [snip]

Absolutely.

>Do we need to prioritise everything? These are all important things, let's
>get them all done.

Sounds good to me.

>While we're at it, we also need to not forget
>our 'monkeygroups', either. We shouldn't be forming new groups, but forming
>subgroups of the main ones. We also need to move ahead with that stuff as
>well.

Yes, thanks for reminding me. Just took a good look at the wiki to
refresh my perspective on our emerging organization. Woo hoo!

>(Obviously it's not as important as saving the evolt boxen, but I see
>no reason for progress on that to stall because of other things. We're all
>capable of multi-tasking).

+1.

Marlene