|
Grex > Coop12 > #194: Motion to encourage staff delegation of responsibility | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 46 of 120:
| 
Jun 11 03:17 UTC 2003 |
I support jlamb as a new party admin.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 47 of 120:
|
Jun 11 18:10 UTC 2003 |
Me too.
|
other
|
|
response 48 of 120:
|
Jun 19 04:59 UTC 2003 |
We seem to have forgotten to commence voting. Mr. Remmers, sir. If you
please...
|
remmers
|
|
response 49 of 120:
|
Jun 19 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Nope, didn't forget. You didn't do the "At the end of two weeks, the
author may then submit a final version for a vote by the membership"
step to confirm that you wanted to bring this to a vote, as specified
in Article 5a of the bylaws. The author always has the option of
deciding whether or not to bring a proposal to a vote at the end of
the discussion period; hence that requirement.
Am I to assume that you want this voted on? If so, what is the final
wording? The same as give in response #0?
|
other
|
|
response 50 of 120:
|
Jun 19 14:54 UTC 2003 |
Interesting point. The use of the word "may" suggests that this step is
not mandatory, which implies that the default is to begin voting on the
proposal in the form most recently posted and accepted by the proposer.
Of course, if in doubt, it seems to me that the voteadm would take the
additional step of asking for verification of the wording just prior to
the two-week deadline.
Perhaps this wording should be clarified.
The wording in #0 is as I'd like it, and I thank those who participated
in this item for their thoughts and perspectives on the issue.
|
mary
|
|
response 51 of 120:
|
Jun 19 15:52 UTC 2003 |
I know you mean well here, Eric, but I was hoping this
wouldn't come to a vote. I mean, the proposal really
doesn't ask for any new policies or procedures. If it
passes nothing changes. If it fails, nothing changes.
At least that's my take on it.
But it really isn't going to harm anything by calling for
a vote. I just don't see it changing anything.
|
flem
|
|
response 52 of 120:
|
Jun 19 16:10 UTC 2003 |
I hope it doesn't come to a vote, either, but I can't agree that if it did
pass, nothing would change. The (only, I believe) effect it would have would
be to make the body of rules that run grex that much longer and more
confusing. I believe that rules should be as concise and clear as possible.
I think this proposal harms that goal, without providing any beneficial change
to improve Grex. I'll vote against it if I have to, but I hope I don't have
to.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 120:
|
Jun 20 05:17 UTC 2003 |
I think it is an extremely clear statement of policy which serves the
precise purpose of both promoting and eliminating uncertainty about the
proper delegation of administrative responsibilities. It does not demand
any actions which cannot be easily remedied if they turn out to be
erroneous.
I consider it a first step in the process of instituting cultural change
and opening up the administration of Grex to a larger pool of qualified
candidates. By encouraging the delegation of responsibility, we create
more opportunities for interested people to begin to exhibit the
inclinations and skills necessary to convince existing staff to
comfortably expand their ranks.
If we don't give more people the opportunity to prove themselves adequate
and appropriate for consideration as potential root staff, then we limit
our ability both to deal with current operational concerns in a timely
manner, and to grow as a system and as a community.
I don't understand why you (flem) would vote against it, or why you
(mary) think it changes nothing. Frankly, if ALL it does is clarify an
existing policy without adding anything to it, then I think it is worth
passing. I think it is more than that.
|
carson
|
|
response 54 of 120:
|
Jun 20 14:41 UTC 2003 |
(I personally don't think it clarifies anything, but rather reiterates
previously forgotten policy. whether it passes or not, it's already
accomplished its goal.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 120:
|
Jun 20 14:52 UTC 2003 |
I'll set up a vote on this today or tomorrow.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 56 of 120:
|
Jun 20 16:40 UTC 2003 |
I'm inclined to vote in favor of this proposal simply because of the phrase
"expressly permitted and encouraged." I noted Jan's comments on why he
didn't want to exercise his abilities and think his reasons valid for him.
That they are valid for him does not excuse the reluctance of the rest
of the staff. It seems obvious that staff does need encouragement
(of both kinds: appreciation of a job well done, and solicitation of
continued efforts).
I hope that this referendum will help provide some of that encouragement.
|
flem
|
|
response 57 of 120:
|
Jun 20 16:47 UTC 2003 |
As I've said repeatedly, the cultural change you're looking for is not
controversial. What's controversial, at least as far as I'm concerned, is
cultural change by fiat. This proposal, IMO, is about as effective as if
Congress were to pass a law stating that criminals were encouraged to stop
committing crimes, because crime is bad, m'kay?
(No, I'm not comparing staff members to criminals. sheesh. :)
It's my firm opinion that it is better to do nothing at all than to do
the wrong thing. Doing the right thing is better still, but it takes
care and patience to determine what the right thing is. I'm convinced
that this proposal is definitely not the right thing to do.
|
other
|
|
response 58 of 120:
|
Jun 20 20:08 UTC 2003 |
Can you help me out by explaining to me what it is about this proposal,
other than that it represents to you cultural change by fiat (a point
which I would argue), that you so strongly oppose?
|
other
|
|
response 59 of 120:
|
Jun 20 20:16 UTC 2003 |
(I am aware of the references to cultural change with which I have
peppered this item and the proposal, but they are there to indicate the
reasoning behind the proposal, and what I hope the proposal BEGINS to
address. And as for fiat, well, the proposal is up for a vote of the
full membership, and if the membership chooses to encourage the staff to
more willingly delegate their less critical responsibilities, then I
think it incumbent on the staff to do so.)
|
janc
|
|
response 60 of 120:
|
Jun 21 02:01 UTC 2003 |
The proposal seems completely redundant to me. I too had been assuming it
would be dropped after Remmers pointed out the previous policy.
I think the staff culture is somewhat disfunctional, but I can't see how any
staff person's behavior would be changed by this policy. We are nearly all
programmers - by instinct very logical thinkers. We know that X /\ X = X,
without even having to look it up in the manual. Redundant input is flushed
from our buffers very fast.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 61 of 120:
|
Jun 21 02:28 UTC 2003 |
Liar.
|
mdw
|
|
response 62 of 120:
|
Jun 21 05:35 UTC 2003 |
Case in point.
|
remmers
|
|
response 63 of 120:
|
Jun 21 17:53 UTC 2003 |
The polls are now open for a vote on this. Type vote or !vote, depending
on your prompt. Votes on member proposals run for ten days, so the polls
will close at the end of the day (EDT) on Tuesday, July 1.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 120:
|
Jun 21 18:30 UTC 2003 |
I am voting no on the proposal because it is redundant. In any case, the
proper procedure would have been to move to amend or replace the existing
policy statement, in order not to have *nearly but not quite identical*
policy statements on the books.
In addition, it would be desirable to address the fundamental flaw - there
is no system or procedure to keep policy alive in people's minds. At the
least there should be some regular staff communication process, even if
not regular ftf meetings.
|
other
|
|
response 65 of 120:
|
Jun 21 18:34 UTC 2003 |
Please, propose the solution you have in mind.
|
jep
|
|
response 66 of 120:
|
Jun 21 19:12 UTC 2003 |
If it passes, the new proposal will replace the existing one, won't it?
I don't think it's proper to use a referendum to clarify an existing
policy. I think that's the job of the Board. The users give a
direction, but the Board handles how it's implemented. If the staff's
discretion to appoint non-root staff members is not being applied
appropriately, the Board should correct it.
I voted "yes", but did so because I didn't want to send the message
that the staff shouldn't be taking appropriate action such as
appointing assistants.
I was caught by surprise when I saw this was being voted on. If I'd
thought there was any chance of that, I'd have objected to the vague
phrasing and inappropriateness of a referendum before now.
Whether it passes or fails, nothing will have been accomplished.
There's no question of direction here. Everyone appears to agree on
what would be good. The referendum isn't resolving anything.
|
janc
|
|
response 67 of 120:
|
Jun 21 19:44 UTC 2003 |
I voted "no" for reasons stated above. There are problems with staff,
but this doesn't do anything to fix any of them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 120:
|
Jun 22 17:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #66: no, a new policy does not replace an old policy unless the motion
specifies that it should. It is just carelessness that has led to this
motion being proposed when a somewhat similar one is on the books.
Re #65: what I would suggest is having an item along the lines of a public
"To Do" list for staff, much like the classified conference. Suggestions
can be hashed out in other items and if found desirable they are added to
the "To Do" item by staff, and addressed as time and opportunity provide,
and frozen or killed when done. I am not suggesting in this a particular
procedure for placing things on the To Do list - only creating the list so
good ideas do not get forgotten too quickly.
|
cross
|
|
response 69 of 120:
|
Jun 22 19:56 UTC 2003 |
Said list already exists, in garage.
|
scg
|
|
response 70 of 120:
|
Jun 22 23:56 UTC 2003 |
I'm not currently a member, but as a former staff member, I hope the
membership votes no on this.
I'll note that a vote of no doesn't indicate disagreement with the sentiment
of the policy. It doesn't say there shouldn't be new staff members. It only
says that this particular proposal shouldn't become policy.
I do see this as making a rather significant change to the way staff has
always claimed to operate, even if staff doesn't operate that way in practice.
This proposal encourages individual staff members to appoint other low level
staffers, without coordination with the rest of the staff. The practice
several years ago, when the staff seemed to work pretty well, was for this
level of staffers to be appointed after discussion among the whole staff.
Under the new proposal, if all staff members except one were adamantly opposed
to adding somebody to a non-root staff position, the one who supported the
addition could go ahead and make the appointment.
|