Subject:
|
Meta discussion about guidance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:10:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
884 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I'm disagreeing with Larry here on some specific points, but I hope it's clear
> that at root, I agree with his stance on community guidance.
> It's something we
> need, even if our process needs refinement...
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> >
> > > (nor was there
> > > much reason for my rebuttal in the first place).
> >
> > There is NO reason for a rebuttal to guidance, ever, unless you think
> > there's an issue with the guidance.
>
> Larry, he was originally being friendly and conversational. That's all. You
> can go on and on about friendly conversation that doesn't include trains being
> off topic for .trains. And you'll be right. But it doesn't matter. This
> whole place has friendly conversations that stem out of discussions and stray
> off topic. As possible, these should be shunted to the correct groups,
> but not
> with such rigor that the friendly conversation is squashed.
>
> This can't be the friendliest place on the Internet without the friendly.
>
> > The proper response to guidance, *unless you think there is an issue* is
> > "thanks, I'll keep that in mind". Nothing else.
>
> How specifically do you mean that? Why are you so opposed to someone
> explaining their thinking? You can disagree with Bram's assumption that it
> wouldn't hurt to post one last note -- that's fine. But is the difference
> between "thanks, I'll keep that in mind" and "I knew you were gonna yell at
> me...but I figured..." so different? He didn't outrightly acknowledge that
> you're point was correct and taken, but he also didn't disagree. Instead he
> pointed out why he thought his action was the best course. And you never
> bothered to counter his rationalle with why you thought otherwise.
> Instead you
> labelled him as recalcitrant and sent it up the chain of command.
> I think that
> right at that point there was a great opportunity to build concensus that was
> lost.
>
> > IF you think there is an issue, it's off topic for any group other than
> > admin.general. (until and unless there is a group lugnet.community.guidance
> > started)
> >
> > That's not to say that there might not be an issue but that issue IMHO, is
> > off topic for the original group, because it's not a "trains" issue, it's an
> > admin issue.
>
> Then isn't it off topic for us to provide guidance to others in the original
> group? It seems that if you (or I) get to decide that our guidance is
> appropriate because of the nature of the guidance then any rebuttle based on
> your logic is also appropriate.
Rather than my usual intersperse, I'll just provide my current thoughts on
the subject.
I sort of disagree that there is no difference between guidance and
discussion of guidance.
Basically I think there's a point at where things have veered far enough off
topic that they no longer belong in a theme group. For instance anything
solely market related. Original guidance, since it's for the edification of
other readers of the theme group, (so they see by example what's OK... we
always have newbies that need help understanding the norms) is not off topic.
It *is* perfectly legitimate and reasonable to question or build consensus
around the nature of guidance but I see that as not on topic for the theme
group. It ought to be taken elsewhere in my view.
( Note that what I saw Bram doing was not questioning or building consensus.
I may have read it wrong but I did see a big difference between what he said
and "thanks for the tip". In my view at the time it was bucking, pure and
simple, and not in a bantering way. He's subsequently clarified. I'm
satisfied with that and I'm also satisfied with his clarification of his
remark about guidance which easily reads as generally anti. I no longer
think he is opposed to guidance as a concept. )
Currently that elsewhere (the place to have meta discussion about guidance),
in my view, is admin.general... note that I think I've shifted my perception
of admin.general a bit from it's original construal. It's no longer a place
to "ask the admins to do something", at least not for the most part. It's
just a place to talk about general admin-ish issues. Presumably for the most
part the hope is the admins are just reading along going "yep, no need for
any comment by us, this issue is working itself along nicely, let it percolate".
I'd wish the elsewhere was somewhere else to reduce traffic here and because
of the connotation that this group carries of "calling in the muscle".
Maybe. I'm not sure.
Further I think once a consensus on what ought or ought not to be done
(about a particular guidance or whether it was good or bad guidance) has
been reached it is perfectly OK (good, even) for someone to followup, with a
summary of the consensus reached, back to the theme group. But I just don't
see having the entire thing there in the theme group as constructive. Maybe
I'm wrong. I dunno.
So, did I send this to admin.general too fast? Not in my view. As soon as
it went meta it was off topic. Could I have done a better job of wording the
third message (the one that sent it here)? Maybe. If someone wants to
suggest a wording (assuming that they agree that getting it out of the theme
group is the right way to go) I'd be glad to hear it.
Oh, and David K.: I usually just don't get your analogies but you're not a
TM counter... not by any means... I realise you're trying as hard as I am
and appreciate the common ground we have.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance
|
| (...) Absolutely. Consensus arrives by discussion and that should not be done in a theme group. (...) This is a very good idea. New admin group for discussion of policies and principles, where .admin.general posts concerning the 'hashing' out of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance
|
| Rearranging with no intent to harm: (...) OK. I think I agree with you because the issue of keeping the NG 'clean' is the motivation - as long as a dissenting opinion is encouraged to follow the guidance off-group eventually. (...) Great. I think (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| I'm disagreeing with Larry here on some specific points, but I hope it's clear that at root, I agree with his stance on community guidance. It's something we need, even if our process needs refinement... (...) Larry, he was originally being friendly (...) (22 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
