[theforum] We've got a serious problem here at evolt.org

Dean Mah dmah at shaw.ca
Thu May 13 16:06:14 CDT 2004

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 03:43:33PM -0400, David Kaufman wrote:
> s t e f wrote:
> >
> > We haven't had any response to a few emails that implied people with
> > admin rights, and matters have been complicated needlessly.
> >
> > (examples here
> > <http://lists.evolt.org/contentarchive/2004-May/013178.html> and there
> > <http://lists.evolt.org/contentarchive/2004-May/013244.html> from
> > Garrett, and here's one from me:
> > <http://lists.evolt.org/contentarchive/2004-May/013111.html> for
> > people who belong to the content group)
> hmmm.  i *tried* to subscribe to each and every one of the confusing
> array of evolt administrivia mailing lists, but i'm dismayed to realize
> that those links are password protected, i've never received a message
> from the [Content] list or [Sysadmin] (except CC's such as this).   i do
> remember reading somewhere that Content, at least was deemed "sensitive
> material", because the critique and possible rejection of the writing of
> our contributors was discussed there.

That's correct.  IMHO, the messages regarding getting files uploaded
to the w.e.o server needed to go to sysadmin as well.  Currently, it's
a sysadmin responsibility to upload the images. (I'm not saying that I
believe that it should be.)  The same applies to requests for DNS
changes, which should be a sysadmin job.

Regardless, I have approved your subscription to both lists.  (This
was a bit of a totalitarian move but was done for expediency since
I'll be away in a bit.)

> i've just resubmitted subscription requests to the Content and Sysadmin
> lists. hopefully whoever moderates the lists will approve me.

Each group should moderate their own list and decide who is approved.

> also, i had to *guess* the url for the subscription pages to do so
> -- why not link them on lists.evolt.org?  is the very existence of
> these lists sensitive?

Most people that are aware of these groups should be participating in
theforum as a whole.  Typically only a small number of people are
admitted to these groups because they either deal with sensitive
information or their purpose is too specific for most people.  As
well, the idea was to keep the groups small to encourage active and
vocal participation and to rotate the members every once in a while.

> perhaps after we consolidate all these admin lists down from whatever it
> currently is (seven?) to whatever was decided to be recently (three,
> two?  dare i ask it be one?)  we can get some *transparency* going on,
> so that those who are able to find the time to participate will be
> better able to Easily See and Speak about whatever's going on, and feel
> like they're able to get things done without having to bear an undue
> burden of red tape.
> such obstacles to participation, lack of information, communication,
> authorization should be obsolete in online electronic communities like
> evolt.  the apathy and attrition of active, enthusiastic leaders lately
> may be due in some part to plain old simple inconvenience :-)

That's a whole different can of worms that I won't get into.  I'll
mention that the current structure (lists, groups, wiki) was supposed
to help address some of the problems that you noted.


More information about the theforum mailing list