|
Grex > Coop8 > #47: Proposed Change in Co-op FW Terms |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 143 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 25 of 143:
| 
Apr 4 06:04 UTC 1996 |
I beleive that Mary proposed that consecutive terms be disallowed. You could
run every other time, but not twice in a row. Did I have that right, Mary?
I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to do this in agora too. Agora is
the highest volume cf, and the one that newbies are dumped into. Would it
be a good place to break in new fws? I have no idea what fwing agora
involves, tho. Past/current fws comment?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 143:
|
Apr 4 08:28 UTC 1996 |
I am opposed to both electing coop fws and limiting terms. The job is
so trivial that it doesn't call for such complexity to fill it. Coop
represents the "business" discussion item of Grex. I suggest that
we ask for volunteers, and let the chairperson choose among them,
by whatever means she/he wishes. This will tend to ensure a fw
knowledgeable about Grex, and even handed (and tempered). If there is
sufficient interest, more than one can be appointed.
|
brighn
|
|
response 27 of 143:
|
Apr 4 08:53 UTC 1996 |
How many nonbaffers are really here for more than two years, anyway?
That was the one thing that struck me as odd about Mary's times, since
most users are only here for six months to a year (or so it seems).
And any term less than two years seems way too short to be useful.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 28 of 143:
|
Apr 4 10:24 UTC 1996 |
I have been here for on toward two years. Does that mean I am doomed to
become a staff member? ;)
|
scott
|
|
response 29 of 143:
|
Apr 4 11:59 UTC 1996 |
Re: #28: Yes. Report at the next Board meeting for your implants. ;)
Actually, Coop is *not* for discussion between staff and users. It is for
discussion between *Board* and users. That distinction means that we talk
system policy, not tech issues. Although on a cheapo system like Grex tech
issues tend to become policy issues, like Usenet news and what it will cost
to provide news on what platform.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 143:
|
Apr 4 15:29 UTC 1996 |
I guess I agree with Rane. This is a trivial job. Electing a coop
fairwitness would be a lot more work than being one. I hate the idea of
building a lot of bureaucracy around such a minor function. That's so
Arbornet (I chortle into my beard, certain that suggestion will set Grexer's
fleeing).
Maybe what you really want is to allow the users of a conference to circulate
a petition asking for a fairwitness to be removed. Of course, that doesn't
require a policy. People could do that now.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 31 of 143:
|
Apr 4 17:27 UTC 1996 |
Well, it's a low-key kinda job but I wouldn't call it trivial. The FW here
needs to have a general understanding of conference maintenance tools and,
over a two year period will probably be involved in two or three restarts.
But there are a couple of other other important skills involved. One,
practicing the art of restraint. Of not jumping in and trying to fix or
tweak despite the overwhelming temptation to do so. Two, and the most
valuable experience (in my opinion), is learning something of conflict
resolution and people skills.
Situations will come up where two or more conference participants are
butting heads over something that was entered. It then falls to the FW to
mediate, quietly, in the background, without fanfare and a lot of thanks.
That is the trickiest part of the job and isn't often obvious to all
users. And as long as a volunteer knows what the job entails having this
experience can be very worthwhile. This is why I'd like to see the job of
FW be rotated with 2 year terms to allow someone who may want to have a
view from this seat the chance to do so. I really, really don't think one
person should have a lock on the position. This is why I stepped down a
while ago, to give someone else the experience, not because I felt I
wasn't doing a good job or because the job wasn't worth doing.
Janc has concerns this rotation might lead to lots of bureaucracy. I too
dislike layers of formality and share his concern but I don't think
rotating FWs here *needs* to go that route. If once a year we put out a
call for volunteers and simply vote in an item, in Co-op, all participants
welcome, well, it need not be a big deal.
Anyhow, this is not about recalling tsty and nephi. It's about opening up
volunteer positions some and sharing the leadership roles.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 32 of 143:
|
Apr 4 21:20 UTC 1996 |
I really think my original suggestion of not having an fw at all is
preferable. There are enough calm folks here that a mediator isnt needed,
and for perfunctory purposes suchas linking or deleting a sensitive item,
the cfadmin can step in. The conference adminstrator can act like a
*default* fw for coop as a duty of his job, but with the understanding
that the vast majority of the time, this is to be a non-fw'
er...non-fw'ed conf. If restarts are eliminated this can work.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 33 of 143:
|
Apr 5 11:38 UTC 1996 |
The tally so far:
For this change: 10
Against this change: 4
Unclear how to classify: 1 (scott)
|
scott
|
|
response 34 of 143:
|
Apr 5 12:04 UTC 1996 |
I don't see a problem with this change, it does sound like a good idea. I'm
being suspicious about the timing, and wanted to make that clear. Put me in
favor of it.
|
robh
|
|
response 35 of 143:
|
Apr 5 15:51 UTC 1996 |
Count me in favor as well, then.
|
dang
|
|
response 36 of 143:
|
Apr 5 16:09 UTC 1996 |
I'd like to hear what tsty and nephi think about it.
|
mta
|
|
response 37 of 143:
|
Apr 7 00:13 UTC 1996 |
I think it's a good idea. Add me to the "pro" tally.
|
carson
|
|
response 38 of 143:
|
Apr 9 01:07 UTC 1996 |
I'd like to hear what TS and Mike think about it too. I guess I'll
ask them next time I see them. (:
|
tsty
|
|
response 39 of 143:
|
Apr 9 08:31 UTC 1996 |
i needed to read the above stuff and think a bit. Since i would presume
that an "ex post facto" situation is *not* in the mix here, i could
agree that in february or march of 1998, there would be a "selection"
(not necesarily an election since elections are NOT private here, yet)
which would have the intersted parties, perhaps including nephi and/or me,
in that selection-mix.
If for some reason either nephi or i decides to resign from fw (or any
fw of any conference decides to resign from fw-ing) before the above
mentioned date, then the selection (not election) process can proceed.
I haven't really seen a particular need to chagne the selection procedure
as it now seems to stand - but i see the point made above (somewhere)
that this proposal appears to be a badly concealed effort to put
ascii hearts and flowers back into the coop login screen.
I *am* certain that the item originator isn't moving with such a poorly
concealed agenda, but there are other responses to consider.
chelsea, years ago, had wondered out loud to me when she asked me if I
would be interestd in co-fw-ing coop, if the fw selection process
smacked just a little bit up against current accusations of a Grexian
"Inner Circle" that *really* runs things. The question might not have
been exactly at that moment, but it was close on the heels of her
offer.
If there is to be a "term limit" on fws here, there or another place, then
it is thoroughly normal to expect the "grandfathering" of current
"place-holders" forthe first, newly created, term. That's sufficiently
"American" for me.
As for successive terms - sure, why not, with perhaps a max of two
terms of two years and one term off before being eligible again.
I would be dissapponted (as would many who support an even-responding-
field) if there were some sort of litmus test for fws.
I also cannot favor the mandate of a borg/staff member as a required fw.
Actually, to distribute the work load on borg/staff, it might be an
excellent idea to state that NO borg/staff CAN be a fw. If a fw gets
elected to borg, or appointed to staff, that fw spot is then open.
I think there are enough sufficiently interested/qualified non-borg/staff
ppl around to populate the available positions. Again, since this
suggested alteration in selecting fws is seemingly directed withthe
best intentions of Grex in mind, no current staff/borg-fw would "lose,"
but rather, be grandfathered in as outlined above.
.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 40 of 143:
|
Apr 9 12:22 UTC 1996 |
My comment to you, at the time you were asked to be a Co-op FW,
was that it would be very nice indeed to find someone who
wasn't a Founder who'd like the position. We were all very anxious
to spread the duties among new users and not put the Founders
in control. You were interested, you were and at that very first meeting
and you expressed an interest in helping out on Grex. And I thank you
for that.
Moving to a term-limit-style of FW probably would have been a good idea
from the get-go. Besides meeting a lot of objectives mentioned earlier it
tends to avoid hard feelings when the time comes for a term to end and
someone else have a shot.
Rather than start a clock ticking for two more years I'd like to
allow the change now. Meaning, I'd encourage you to submit your
name as a volunteer and let the users select the fairwitnesses, now.
This is not mean-spirited or an attempt to focus on current events,
you know that. I know you know that because of the discussion we
had when I stepped down.
I'll have a proposed set of Co-op FW Guidelines up real soon now, for a
group editing session. April 16th will mark two weeks discussion has been
available. I'd encourage everyone who cares to express an opinion to do
so. When the guidelines are ready I'd think we could call for volunteers
and within another week or so have selected Co-op FWs for term limits.
This could mean a change in faces but not necessarily so. If you think
you'd like the position a couple more years I'd encourage you to again
volunteer.
|
ajax
|
|
response 41 of 143:
|
Apr 9 17:46 UTC 1996 |
Have you considered synching the seletion process with board elections,
instead of starting it now? I think it would make the timing easier to
remember.
|
dang
|
|
response 42 of 143:
|
Apr 9 17:58 UTC 1996 |
or it could get lost in the shuffle of the board elections.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 43 of 143:
|
Apr 9 20:43 UTC 1996 |
Mary, although I have stated my reservations, I think this is
on the whole worth trying. But this has to be up to TS and Nephi
There is no mechanism in place to remove them as fw's against their
will. They agreed to be fw's in good faith with the guidelines that
were in place at the time. If they voluntarily wish to put themselves
up for election, thats fine. But since this wasnt stipulated when
they took over as fw's, it cant be forced on them and it wouldbt be
right to do so.
Unless you want to adopt specific guidlines for removing fw's, this
is clearly up to ts and nephi. If they arent willing to go along with it,
the idea has to be dropped. This is why I was saying it should be
"grandfathered" in, because they'd be more agreeable if they were allowed to
finish out two years as fw. If they've been fw's for a year, let them
serve out the next year and then we can haev elections. This is fair.
|
dang
|
|
response 44 of 143:
|
Apr 9 21:20 UTC 1996 |
I agree
|
chelsea
|
|
response 45 of 143:
|
Apr 9 22:49 UTC 1996 |
tsty and nephi don't own this conference. Never did. This aspect of the
job was disclosed from day one. If the conference participants want this
change it should happen. There need not be hard feelings. They could
both volunteer again, right now, to continue in the role.
13 people have expressed support for the change as stated. 4 people have
expressed they don't want the change. Unless those who have expressed
support change their minds, or want to make changes to the proposed plan,
or a whole lot more people chime in with non-support, the plan should
proceed.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 46 of 143:
|
Apr 10 00:06 UTC 1996 |
But if tsty and nephi decline to participate, on what basis doy ou
remove them as fw's? There are no stipulations for removing fw's
and to pretend that such stips exsist for this purpose when they dont
would be wrong. I think you have to set up these ground rules before
you can proceed. Or else you could be putting the cfadmin in the
position of having to remove fw's against their will, which would be
a really bad sittuation.
|
scott
|
|
response 47 of 143:
|
Apr 10 00:49 UTC 1996 |
I get/got a weird feeling about all this fuss over the Coop screen business.
It's almost as if the content is secondary, and the real thing people took
offence at was nephi and tsty's approach.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 48 of 143:
|
Apr 10 00:52 UTC 1996 |
Okay, I've got a first draft of some Co-op FW Guidelines drawn
up and, hard as I tried, they are very much written from my
point of view. So they need a lot of editorial advice.
This is what would be made available to those looking to
volunteer to serve as Co-op Fairwitness.
Get out your red pens and have at it. Please.
******************************************************
Gentle Guidelines for Fairwitnessing the Co-op Conference
Co-op is the conference were folks gather to discuss how Grex is run,
troubleshoot problems, plan for the future, and where the staff and Board
keep us informed on related issues. The Co-op conference has two
fairwitnesses, selected and appointed by the conference participants, to
serve for two year terms, doing a job that is mostly invisible, if done
well.
Responsibilities of the Co-op Fairwitnesses:
1. Keep an eye on the conference size and from time to time either do
a rolling restart or a fresh restart. When is the conference big enough
to restart? Well, that will depend on how Grex's disk space is holding
holding out, if a lot of items are becoming unwieldy due to length, and
whether a new start or restart might serve as stimulus for a fresh look at
both new and old discussions. Anyhow, the participants will mostly let
you know when it feels right (usually between 1600 and 2000 blocks, but
who's counting). CFADM does most of the work and they will help you
through the process. No UNIX skills are required.
2. Follow up on link requests. Sometimes discussions will be entered in
other conferences with content making it would make it prime material for
Co-op. If the Co-op FW notices this first, great, just link it over. But
often the FW will get a request for a link. Unless there is a reason why
the item shouldn't be linked, do so. Your judgement call.
3. From time to time there will be conflicts between users. An example -
someone will find a comment posted by another totally out of line and he
or she will come to you demanding the comment be censored. An extreme
example, but it happens. This is where a FW has the opportunity to make a
difference by entering into a discussion, usually in e-mail, with those
involved and, if all goes well, mediating a mutually acceptable solution.
This is where some people skills come in handy. There are no hard and
fast rules about such situations, just that however you resolve it with
one person be prepared to offer the same solution to another. And that
censorship is almost never the best response. If that seems like the only
option you need to keep trying. Not all situations can be resolved with
everyone's dignity intact. But that's the goal.
4. In the event something is posted that appears to be a security risk
notify a staff person immediately for advice on how it should be handled.
Resort to FW commands only if help is not able to respond in an
appropriate time frame. Your judgement call.
5. Think of yourself as a janitor, mostly. Most of your efforts will not
be obvious to the users. When in doubt about how something should be
done, ask the users. Co-op should not be considered a specialty
conference where a fairwitnesses may put a personality spin on how it's
managed. Think invisible. Share your views as a conference participant,
of course, but not as a fairwitness or through fairwitness commands or
access privileges.
Fairwitness needn't does and don'ts:
1. The Fairwitness needn't push discussion, or try to keep discussions on
track, or moderate discussion. Efforts to do so on the part of any one
"leader" tend to only create friction. Besides, the conference
participants are very capable of helping out in this regard and the less
visible leadership in Co-op discussions the better, in most cases.
2. Don't look to the censor and kill command as a fairwitness fix. It's
a very heavy tool and (unless it's being used for routine housekeeping
where there has been advance notice) it should be used with extreme care
and a whole lot of thought. Asking advice from either the users or staff
might be appropriate if you're looking to invoke either as a solution to a
people problem.
3. Don't ignore user feedback. Again, this conference belongs to all who
participate here. And doing so causes bad karma.
***********************************************************
|
kerouac
|
|
response 49 of 143:
|
Apr 10 00:59 UTC 1996 |
I think it IS ts and nephi's approach that people wre upset about. I
also think that if an election were held now, it would be a referendum
on the login screen and ts and nephi would lose. And this would be
an unfortuante politicizing of the fw selection process. Its simply
fairer to wait until they decide to step down before going to an
elected fw format.
|