[Theforum] Re: some thoughts

[Elfur Logadottir]

From: "Warden, Matt" <mwarden at mattwarden.com>

|
| elfur wrote:
| >|
| >| >- is there a special allowance to edit, valid for that day or?
| >| >do we always let everyone go for it?
| >|
| >| everyone. article locking would be nice.
| >
| >again, if you always let everyone have the priv=3 level when they ask
for
| >it, why don't you just include it in the subscription for theforum list?
|
| Because the whole subscription of theforum hasn't shown interest in
| editing articles.

ok, and then the subscription to theforum has reached 1500 and 'only' 550
of them show interest in editing an article, don't you think that it's a
bit too steep for an administration group, even when 'only' 250 of them are
super duper active..

| See the process I outlined.

see my cons to that process ... it requires much more monitoring of other
people's work than the current process.

| >how do you really secure a subsection this way?
|
| Not sure what you mean here. How do we ensure that it is a subsection and
| not the entire list? If that's what you're asking, you can't. I don't see
| why it has to be a subsection. I just assumed that not everyone would
want
| to edit articles (it's nothing glamorous). But, if they all do, rock on.

ah, but then you don't agree with the basic summary i posted:
"theforum is open to everyone and published on leo, while a subsection of
theforum has the administrational privilege after showing enough enthusiasm
for the community."

| The only reason I can see NOT to do that is for security
| reasons, and so far nothing has been brought up that can't be prevented
by
| a simple archiving of article versions.

so it can be prevented, but the prevention is time consuming and cludgy (is
that a word :) and unnecessary ... why don't you just let the person vent
first ... interfere with process and definitions and tell his opinion about
stuff and things and then after he's established some identity for himself
within the group, he's ready to volunteer for administration (and more
administration than just editing articles).

| >no absolutely not, we monitor each other's job - yes - but we have a
| >certain basis of trust ... in the aspect that we know that none of us
| >would go about editing the code ... we have developed through practice
| >some ground rules (albeit some are still vague).
|
| Why couldn't that same development happen with the group of article
| editors?

because the 'monitoring' going under the current process takes into account
that the person has already establised an identity for himself within the
group. therefor other members know what to anticipate from that person and
know what to monitor (if anything).

when this is done point blank, without any introduction or identity
establishment, you have no base to anticipate from ... thus you have to
monitor everything until such identity is established.  and that's time
consuming for no real reason.

oh, and why is it only article editors. how many groups do we need to have?
and who's doing the rest if this subsection of theforum only does article
editing?

| Fair enough.
|
| What's your suggestion? Are you wanting to exclude people you don't trust
| just because one of them might edit code in an article and force us to
| restore it from the archive?

it's not a matter of _me_ trusting them, it's a matter of them establishing
an identity for other administrators to know what to monitor and how (just
like you know you have to monitor my english at times).
And yes, if that means that some trustworthy people will have to wait a
while (not necessarily a long while, but still a while) until they get
administration privileges, so be it. that is a risk i'm willing to take,
and so should you, for the better of the community you take part in
running.

thanks
elfur