Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:42:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2766 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > The LUGNET Procedures Review committee was formed recently
>
> Another personal preference: don't call it a committee. Treat it casually. "We
> asked some people if they wouldn't mind giving us some feedback". Calling it a
> committee implies that it's a group with power and responsibility. It could
> possibly evoke emotions of "why aren't *I* on the committee?". I think it
> further enforces the idea of Lugnet as a business rather than a community.
For informal functions, that's probably a good idea. The LPRV, on the other
hand, did/does have real power and responsibility: the power to change and steer
and directly influence an important part of LUGNET's direction, and the
responsibility to provide meaningful responses. If it were a rubber stamp group,
I can see the distinction; but in this case, I believe the use of the term
"committee" is very appropriate. If it does evoke some sense of business, I'm
not seeing that as a bad thing, actually... for example, ILTCO functions under
that model, fairly successfully from what I understand.
> And what the heck. While I keep seeming to throw out advice, here's more: Why
> did it take 3 days to get this reply to Kevin? I think the problem may be that
> the LTT is afraid of itself. It doesn't require an immediate official response,
Good question, I'll answer bluntly: because we didn't agree about the response.
As a group, the admin team much prefers to come to consensus about an issue
before publicly stating anything. We were all very much aware that waiting
several days would create a poor perception; but none of us were comfortable
making official statements knowing others disagreed. We respect one another
enough to not step on each other in that way. After quite a bit of discussion,
we were able to come to consensus on a response, but it did take three days.
> but a quick non-official word from admins would have been excellent.
If I recall, one of the points from earlier discussion was whether or not admins
should always be official or not. We preferred to err on the side of caution,
rather than provide potentially conflicting responses.
> I'm kind of worried that the view the admins have at the moment is "*I* don't
> want to post about it, what if I say something without the official stamp of
> approval from the rest of the LTT?"
That's accurate, although not all the time. In this instance, we knew the
perception would be negative, and we'll accept the response.
> > * The LPRV committee's work is/was vital. The assumption that it was a rubber
> > stamp committee was not based on input from the LTT, or any communication
> > from LTT to LPRV.
>
> Well, that's not quite true. I think the truth is that the LTT said some things
> that stated that the purpose of the LPRV was basically to be proofreaders. Fix
> spelling, grammar, and maybe clarity and structure of the document. Don't
> discuss the policies, don't discuss past events, don't discuss specific admins.
Speaking as an observer of the committee, my understanding of the specifics of
the group's charter was to stay on task and avoid time-consuming loops like
debating personalities or picking apart past actions. If some of the statements
from LTT came across as indicating a rubber stamp outcome, it was certainly not
the intention. Of course, it's easy to say this after the fact, and won't change
how members of the LPRV interpreted the messages at the time, but I was puzzled
then (and still kind of am) that this was a serious concern. This is still a
vital task that needs to be done, and I really hope the group can continue what
it started, although I'm not in a position to make that happen.
> > * One theme that is represented in Kevin's post is that LUGNET staff members
> > hold all power, and members hold none. In fact, the administration has very
> > little real effect on day-to-day actions within LUGNET. We can't close
> > topics, we can't edit posts, we can't remove posts. The only recourse
> > currently available (by self-imposed decision) is to temporarily disallow
> > posting from an individual who has flagrantly flouted the ToU.
>
> Heh, so, in effect, Kevin's correct? Staff holds all the power, there's just not
> much of it?
I wouldn't characterize it that way. Each member here has an impressive amount
of influence depending on how they wish to utilize it. Admins have one extra
tool in addition to the "post" button, they can temporarily suspend posting
rights.
> I think the problem is that the power to disable posting rights is
> pretty considerable. And since (as you correctly state) it really IS your only
> power, I've been concerned that it may also be used as a response to unrelated
> issues.
That's assuming the admin staff can and would abuse the power. Since the
procedures and requirements for using that power have been vague, and the
results questioned, we are trying to define and standardize how and when it
would be used by creating the P&P documents. Those documents should provide
objective guidelines on under what circumstances a given action is taken, and
under what limitations they may be used. This would be a public document that,
if for some reason an admin were to suspend someone's posting for insufficient
reasons, LUGNET members have a concrete way of crying "foul" and saying exactly
why. It provides accountability, as well as making it easier for admins to
determine what to do in a given circumstance.
> And in the theme of offering advice: (from another post)
> > it's apparent we need to be more explicit about confidentiality in the
> > future, possibly up to and including NDAs.
>
> That sort of comes off as defensive. Realistically, what would a Lugnet NDA do?
Yes, it is kind of defensive, and I really doubt it would come to that. But the
core point is: it's not always the evil admins that cause an issue. Kevin
decided to post a URL that was asked to be confidential during the review
process. (He later asked for a cancellation, and due to a problem with my email
filters, I didn't receive the request for several hours.) I respect his wanting
to make a difference, but at the same time the action caused repurcussions and
had a negative impact on being able to assign a level of trust.[1]
Overall, I'd like to see if it's at all possible for the LPRV to reconvene and
continue the work. I think the group had made some very important points and
progress.
One more quick point: I think all the admins involved have a bone-level
philosophy that whatever we do, it's to make things better for LUGNET and the
LEGO community. Maybe some of the frustration and misinterpretations are because
this is built into our bones, but we don't always verbalize it so it's not
obvious. If we are making a bunch of documents, it's not to strangle discussion
or assign serf status to all non-admins... it's to make things better for
everyone by providing accountability and setting expectations. Members rightly
want more insight into what's happening; this is a big attempt at providing the
insight.
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
[1] Probably a good time to point out that I've heard and read nothing but good
things about Kevin (which is why he was invited to participate in the review, I
believe).
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) Nowhere in the charter did it say "stay on task and avoid time-consuming loops like debating personalities or picking apart past actions". Why would you create a charter with the working (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) Well, as far as I could tell, the LPRV pretty much just had the privilage to see the document before it went into effect. And, I'm not opposed to that, really. I mean, I fully recognize and support the desire to strengthen a document before (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) Another personal preference: don't call it a committee. Treat it casually. "We asked some people if they wouldn't mind giving us some feedback". Calling it a committee implies that it's a group with power and responsibility. It could possibly (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 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
|
|
|
|
