|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 61 responses total. |
davel
|
|
response 25 of 61:
| 
Jan 25 21:56 UTC 1998 |
"after much discussion"?
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 61:
|
Jan 25 22:48 UTC 1998 |
The problem here is that staff is less in touch with the people using party
these days than we used to be. For many of the candidates, we don't know them
very well, and don't know how they get along with regular users of party.
The feedback on the candidates that we get here in "coop" is of limited use,
because this person would be dealing primarily with the party crowd who aren't
extremely we represented here. We need a decision process that brings more
party users into the loop. That's why the board/staff "needs to figure out
how to make a decision."
|
valerie
|
|
response 27 of 61:
|
Jan 25 23:28 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 61:
|
Jan 26 00:30 UTC 1998 |
The fact that this was under discussion was well-advertised in
the motd, but not too many partiers showed up here to put in their
two cents, or to volunteer. So maybe it doesn't matter too much
to the typical party person who gets the job. Party doesn't need
a whole lot of administrating anyway, does it? Apart from installing
noises and establishing vanity channels, what is there to do? Things
pretty much run themselves. So maybe the choice doesn't matter very
much, as long as the person knows how to do things and does them
in a timely fashion.
|
scg
|
|
response 29 of 61:
|
Jan 26 06:36 UTC 1998 |
I'm on staff, and spend a fair bit of time in party. I think I have a fairly
good sense of who most of these people are. Some other staffers are in party
a lot too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 61:
|
Jan 26 06:42 UTC 1998 |
I'm never in party...but, why not let those in party make the choice?
|
mag
|
|
response 31 of 61:
|
Jan 26 07:43 UTC 1998 |
I don't think the great number of party ravellers care too much who has the
job, as long as they are prompt in meeting their responsibilites.
|
gerund
|
|
response 32 of 61:
|
Jan 26 09:44 UTC 1998 |
John's response (#28) seems accurate to me. I spend a fair amount of my
time in party and I believe most party users could care less who was doing
the job, so long as the job was being done.
|
valerie
|
|
response 33 of 61:
|
Jan 26 12:48 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 34 of 61:
|
Jan 26 13:35 UTC 1998 |
Then maybe the staff should make the choice based on technical
and people skills. The people in party had plenty of notice that
this issue was up for discussion, but few bothered to participate
in the discussion.
|
gerund
|
|
response 35 of 61:
|
Jan 26 15:50 UTC 1998 |
I agree.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 36 of 61:
|
Jan 27 00:52 UTC 1998 |
And it seems that, mostly, the partiers in here ratify the idea of staff
making a recommendation.
|
beamer
|
|
response 37 of 61:
|
Jan 28 16:16 UTC 1998 |
Well I came to offer my services, not only as a party administrator. I am
willing to help out in anyway that I can. It seems as though you guys already
have some great canidates, but just in case I am going to tidy up my noisetab.
I think everyone knows me, I am on quite a bit. Well if the party
administrator job has been filled please let me know if there is anything else
I can do. Thanks!
|
winipooh
|
|
response 38 of 61:
|
Jan 29 02:33 UTC 1998 |
i am willing to help out in anyway i am if you hadn't noticed i live here=)
so i am willing to help and i live interacting with everyone it is so cool..
|
mag
|
|
response 39 of 61:
|
Feb 8 05:02 UTC 1998 |
Considering it's been nearly a month since this issue was raised, can we
assume that the problem isn't as serious as was first thought?
|
valerie
|
|
response 40 of 61:
|
Feb 8 15:18 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
mag
|
|
response 41 of 61:
|
Feb 8 23:40 UTC 1998 |
Okay, thanks. I'll look out for news at that time.
|
valerie
|
|
response 42 of 61:
|
Feb 12 13:10 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 43 of 61:
|
Feb 12 17:25 UTC 1998 |
Board approval isn't necessary. The applicable policy on appointments
is as follows (from the minutes of November 16, 1994:
Motion (remmers, srw):
Staff with permanent root access may at its discretion grant
specific resources to qualified individuals for the purpose of
performing work that is beneficial to Grex. Examples of such
resources would be write access to selected directories in
order to modify data files or to install software. In the the
event of an emergency, temporary root access may be granted by
any permanent root.
Permanent root access, access to the staff conference, and
access to the "baff" mailing list shall be with the advice and
consent of the Board.
Passed unanimously (6-0-0).
Since partyadm's don't get root, staff conference access, or "baff"
mailing list access, the staff can just appoint 'em.
I wrote the above policy, and was trying to keep bureaucratic machinery
to a minimum.
|
mag
|
|
response 44 of 61:
|
Feb 12 20:30 UTC 1998 |
Kewl, thanks for the update Valerie and rules John:)
|
scg
|
|
response 45 of 61:
|
Feb 12 22:46 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, we know that's how the board vote went, but more recently the board has
aproved party administrator and cfadm candidates, so we felt it was a good
idea to send this to the board for final aproval.
|
remmers
|
|
response 46 of 61:
|
Feb 13 04:05 UTC 1998 |
But at least one person expressed impatience with the slowness of
the process. So although it might be a good idea to send it to the
board for final approval, it might also be a good idea not to.
In any case, just thought I'd point out that the written policy
allows the staff to act on its own here.
|
mag
|
|
response 47 of 61:
|
Feb 13 22:14 UTC 1998 |
Thanks John! That's very sincere and kind of you.
|
snow
|
|
response 48 of 61:
|
Feb 16 00:00 UTC 1998 |
Glad to know what's going on :)
|
silvakow
|
|
response 49 of 61:
|
Feb 18 21:28 UTC 1998 |
Someone might want to take down the message that shows up on join to chat.
I thought Grex was still looking for admins...
|