[Theforum] Re: Charter Gaps

isaac isaac at members.evolt.org
Wed Oct 24 22:51:53 CDT 2001

> 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

you've missed my point. forget the reasoning behind the article denial. what
i'm saying is that when i view my threaded view of admin, i want to be
looking at administrative issues. when i look through my theforum box, i
want to see threads about the future of evolt.org.

i don't think the two mailing lists should be mixed together.

perhaps assigning voting rights also assigns rights to edit/approve/etc, but
the two lists would get confusing if mixed, imho.

> assigning it may be a one or two person task. deciding to assign it would
> not be.

that's what i'm saying. the existing voting membership "approves" that
assigning of priv/voting rights.

> 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.

2 issues have faced most potential entries to admin in the past. 1 of those
has been "it's chaotic enough as it is, do we need any more?". with a
concise voting application and process, i think that would be taken care of.
then the size of the group will not effect entry of further members.

finally, that issue aside, if the member is indeed highly respected, then
"1-3 people" would be voted down by the majority.

> 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.

yes, for sure. reminds me of RTCW and the ability to call a vote to kick out
a team-killer. heh.

> > 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.

yes, and that point is the vote by existing members. HeadLemur wants to join
theforum and help steer evolt.org. he applies. members of theforum recognise
him for his contributed articles, opinions on thelist and his own site, and
vote him in. he gains voting rights and administrative privileges (as well
as some docs that cover the processes, and maybe a recommendation that he
watches things for a while to learn about "taking" emails, etc).

the process for thesite (passwords for servers, etc) may remain more

> 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.

yes. the closed doors have been a mistake, and right now, we're collectively
changing that.


More information about the theforum mailing list