|
Grex > Coop8 > #47: Proposed Change in Co-op FW Terms |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
chelsea
|
|
Proposed Change in Co-op FW Terms
| 
Apr 3 11:45 UTC 1996 |
I'd like to propose a change in how Co-op Fairwitnesses are
selected. Instead of appointment, for as long as a FW wants
the job (or is tolerated), I'd like to move to it being a
set-term position and the Fairwitnesses chosen by Co-op
participants.
I'd suggest the term be for 2 years, with two FWs having
staggered terms. Anyone can volunteer to serve. Voting
could either be formal and private and open to all users
or casual and held in an item in Co-op with the person
who gets the most support getting the job. I'd also
suggest Co-op participants come up with a type of
job description so that volunteer know what would be
expected of them to some degree.
I'd think we could decide to do this simply based on
a show of support here. If you have an opinion, express
it, and (unless it's really close) the majority opinion
would enable the change.
This change would enable more folks to get experience as
a FW and have a chance to help out in a non-techie role.
Nobody should own a job here for life. It's only fair to
everyone, FW included.
Opinions?
|
| 143 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 1 of 143:
|
Apr 3 11:54 UTC 1996 |
Should this be supported and we move to such a system, I'd
encourage TS and Nephi to submit their names as candidates
and take a full term if elected. Prior experience as an
appointed candidate shouldn't be a barrier to volunteering
again. But, in the spirit of giving new people a shot at
this position, I'd like to see there be a rule that no one
could be appointed for consecutive terms.
With the first election, the person getting the most votes
would get a two year term, and the runner-up getting a one
year term.
|
gregc
|
|
response 2 of 143:
|
Apr 3 12:09 UTC 1996 |
Sounds like a fine plan. I support it as worded.
|
remmers
|
|
response 3 of 143:
|
Apr 3 12:18 UTC 1996 |
Sounds good to me.
|
ajax
|
|
response 4 of 143:
|
Apr 3 15:45 UTC 1996 |
Me too! (Seems like there should be an acronym for this...maybe "M2" :-).
|
srw
|
|
response 5 of 143:
|
Apr 3 16:01 UTC 1996 |
Me too. Thanks for proposing this, Mary.
|
brighn
|
|
response 6 of 143:
|
Apr 3 17:29 UTC 1996 |
Put down another "aye" vote for the plan.
|
abchan
|
|
response 7 of 143:
|
Apr 3 19:03 UTC 1996 |
<abchan nods in agreement with the plan>
|
steve
|
|
response 8 of 143:
|
Apr 3 19:33 UTC 1996 |
An excellent idea.
|
dang
|
|
response 9 of 143:
|
Apr 3 20:29 UTC 1996 |
I support it. I've always thought there should be a way to get some
experience fwing without haveing to come up with a cf idea.
|
sekari
|
|
response 10 of 143:
|
Apr 3 21:10 UTC 1996 |
me too on the vote plan
|
kerouac
|
|
response 11 of 143:
|
Apr 3 21:25 UTC 1996 |
An interesting idea, but why is coop being singled out for special
treatment? All I said in item 42 in broad terms is that fair witnesses
in general should be held more accountable. This does that but only for
coop. I think thats hypocritical and there should be a uniform policy
for all topical confs. Unless coop is not by definition a conference
in the same way that hsex is or agora or health, then you cant just say
it should be treated differently.
Lets define conferences as either (A) topical or (B) Non-topical. Grant4ed
there will be some grey area here but not much. Marvin and Accordions are
non-topical, health and politics are topical. Those "topical" confs should
be considered "official" grex confs and subject to the rules stated above.
The non-topical ones can be fw'ed as is current. Other people should have
the opportunity to fw the larger confs. But I think it would hurt coop
if you treat it diffently, like a problem child compared to all the other
confs. If this is good for coop, it is good for other confs.
|
steve
|
|
response 12 of 143:
|
Apr 3 22:01 UTC 1996 |
Coop is different from the other conferences in that its specific goal
is to help run this system.
There should be *few* across-the-board rules for conferences, other
than legal ones. Different conferences are for different things, and
I sure don't want to walk down the road of trying to classify and
regulate conferences any more than we have to. There is an example
of that paradigm in town already. No thanks.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 13 of 143:
|
Apr 3 22:17 UTC 1996 |
Then why dont we get a set login and logout screen, eliminate coop
restarts, and try not having any fairwitnesses in coop at all. This
could be done as an experiment.
I dont think any items should be retired or killed from coop as a rule, so
if you eliminate restarts the fw serves little purpose here. Setting up
elections IS just bureacracy to be truthful. And in some rare instance
of needing an item removed from coop, cfadmin can do that, and can also
handle any linking (though there's not much of that in coop)
COOP is an example of a conference that shouldnt ever have to be
identified with one or two users, as if it is their vision.
Fairwittnesses arent needed here.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 14 of 143:
|
Apr 3 22:49 UTC 1996 |
I'm not sure politicizing coop is a good idea. The coop conference is
too important to let popularity contests or political agendas decide who
fw's it. A bunch of kids could join coop long enough to band together
and get their own fw elected as a prank. In other confs this wouldnt
matter as much, but the nature of what is being discussed and its
importance to grex's future requires that it have as little
politicalization as possible. I'd like to see elections in Agora, but
not here. Also elections open up a can of worms, because you also have
to flesh out rules for how to remove an elected fw. We need such rules
but if we are only talking about one conference it is hardly worth going
into. Coop is the one conf that doesnt need elections. Or fw's for that
matter.
|
mdw
|
|
response 15 of 143:
|
Apr 3 23:20 UTC 1996 |
Egads. U:F had complicated rules for selecting organizers too.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 16 of 143:
|
Apr 4 00:18 UTC 1996 |
Richard, I suppose you could take your suggestion for changing other
conferences to those other conferences and see how the participants feel
about 'em. What we're doing here is seeing how Co-op participants feel
about how Co-op goes.
Maybe this is something that might work well elsewhere. Co-op would make a
nice test to see how it goes. But when the time comes any discussion
about changes to a conference most certainly need to take place within
that conference.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 17 of 143:
|
Apr 4 00:30 UTC 1996 |
Over the next few days I'll try to put together a rough draft of something
like Co-op Fairwitnessing Guidelines, which will be nothing but a
beginning in need of group fine-tuning. But that way if it looks like
this proposal has clear support we'll be that much closer to putting out a
call for volunteers.
What would be an appropriate length of time to wait to ensure most
participants have had a chance to express an opinion? A week? Two weeks?
|
scott
|
|
response 18 of 143:
|
Apr 4 00:36 UTC 1996 |
Well, I can go along with occasional new blood here, although I don't know
why this would be suggested except as a way to get the login screen changed.
I *like* the current login screen. OK, so I'm a clueless newbie here on Grex,
but I still like it.
Is it really that bad?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 19 of 143:
|
Apr 4 01:12 UTC 1996 |
I've felt this would be a good idea for years now. And whether or
not we make the change I still think it is a good idea.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 20 of 143:
|
Apr 4 02:37 UTC 1996 |
I think one guidleine should be that coop always have two fw's and one
be a staffer and one be a regular user. Reflects the purpose and
nature of the readers of this conf.
I really think having different policies in different confs is only going
to weaken things though. I was looking for this sort of suggestion in
item 42, but peopl;e were more concerned with cutting down my ideas
than in suggesting their own.
I'd just say that if this is being done simply to get the login screen
changed, its a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I dont
know why getting a login screen changed is more important than the
larger conferencing issues.
|
srw
|
|
response 21 of 143:
|
Apr 4 03:18 UTC 1996 |
I don't like the idea of requiring a staffer as fw for coop. It gives the
wrong impression as to what the job of staff is on this board. For the
same reason I'd prefer to see more non-staff run for board, and have fewer
directors who are on staff. This is not a big problem, but I think it
would be an improvement.
|
dang
|
|
response 22 of 143:
|
Apr 4 03:28 UTC 1996 |
When's the next board election, and what are the qualifications for running?
Now that I'm going to be in town for a long time, I'd consider running.
|
ajax
|
|
response 23 of 143:
|
Apr 4 03:47 UTC 1996 |
I wonder if this plan might do well to include agora as well, as it and
coop are kind of "system" conferences, somewhat different from other cfs.
There was no mention made of term limits, so I assume the same
FWs could remain in place indefinitely, if always re-elected.
For selection of FWs, I think a board vote of the interested nominees
is a good approach. Is that how the current FWs were selected?
I wouldn't like a "general feeling of the item" vote for FWs. Member vote
would be preferable to that, but is overkill for such positions.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 24 of 143:
|
Apr 4 03:53 UTC 1996 |
The users of the conf should run their own conf unless the board wants
to adopt broad policies. So I think a board vote on this matter would be
inappropriate. Let coop users decide (and agora users if this is
expanded)
And I think if coop is a board designed for discussion between users
and staffers, it makes sense to have one of each. I dont think it is
any great sacrifice for a different staffer every two years to co-fw
coop with a different user. And I'd think if someone has been fw for
two years they should let someone else run but thats their choice.
Also, if two years is the agreed limit, let TS and Nephi finish out a
full two years first before having an election. How long have they been
fw's? This would only be fair.
|