Subject:
|
Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:08:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1655 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> The proposed P&P not only fails to provide a process, procedure or forum for
> expressing such concerns, in fact it states that such feedback will have no
> effect on the staffing of the Admin positions. That stance guarantees that
> those in power stay in power, unless the other members of the Admin team agree
> unanimously that there is a problem.
That's mostly accurate, I would add "or one or more site owner(s) remove a staff
member from their position."
The reason it's stated in such a way stems from the current structure of LUGNET
ownership... Todd and Suzanne are the owners of record for the server and
infrastructure, and it's their choice as to how the site is managed. With both
these individuals choosing to step back, they've authorized some people,
including Larry, myself, Frank, and a few others to continue what they've
started. But when it all comes down to it, should Todd or Suzanne wish to email
me saying, "Kelly, thank you for your work, but I think it's best you no longer
serve as an admin," I would no longer be an admin. Simple as that. If the site
owners wanted to implement different processes or procedures, with or without
feedback from the membership or admin team, they could. The P&P documents work
from that fundamental assumption. The language regarding unanimous admin
consensus to remove another admin is a safety valve more than anything else, and
even that can be overridden by a site owner.
The society that's been fostered by the initial work of Todd & Suzanne has been
very open, and as pointed out in other threads, Todd has always been very
welcoming of feedback and suggestions. It's also true that the current admin
team has had the appearance, at least, of not being as open to suggestion and
feedback. I do think it's vital for this community to feel that it has a voice
in how things happen, and that the feedback process needs to be expanded and
solidified. But it's also important to remember that this is a choice of the
site owners. The openness they instilled in the community was a conscious
decision on their part.
There is a small portion of the P&P that does address member grievance and
appeal process, but it's apparent by this conversation that it needs some
serious revision.
> One concept that I tried to talk about that was lacking in the P&P was member's
> rights. There is little in the P&P or the ToU that talks about member's rights.
A more accurate way of looking at this would be defining members' privileges,
rather than rights. A right is something that one may properly claim as due to
them; a privilege is something that is granted to someone. I think perhaps
there's been a general blurring between the two concepts, which has led to
misunderstandings. The ToU grants members the privilege of posting and reading
and otherwise utilizing LUGNET services, but that is not an innate right; the
ToU (is supposed to) embody the privileges the site owners wish to grant, and
can be changed only by the site owners at their discretion or with their
consent. The extent to which they solicit and heed member feedback is up to
them. Another, more terse (and perhaps less politic) way of explaining this is
by stating that LUGNET is not a democracy.
Now, having said that, there's undoubtedly more than can (and should) be
documented about the recourse a member has during a dispute or other
disagreement. But the P&P document's central purpose was not to define what the
MEMBERS could do, but what the STAFF could or could not do, and should or should
not do.
> If there was an official forum where we could register complaints about Admins,
> not members, then it would be clearer when comments are personal attacks of
> members, vs. complaints about admins heavy haded policing, or perceived abuses
> of power. It would provide a place where members could speak their minds about
> Admin's and not have to live in fear of threats of suspension (my perception due
> to this post http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12797).
I believe the lugnet.admin structure is meant for that purpose... which is also
why Tom Duggan's post has not (yet) been addressed as violating the ToU. I think
it's in one of those "gray" areas that requires better definition. If the post
were about member to member (although technically it is), it's a violation of
the ToU for a personal attack against Larry. As a complaint against an admin or
site policies, even though I don't agree with the assertions or aspersions about
Larry's character, it needs a forum. Traditionally, whenever somebody has been
timed out, they still have access to post in .admin so they're not totally cut
off.
(If this sounds like I'm taking the easy way out of dealing with Tom's post,
it's probably because I am. Technically it's a violation; but enforcing the
violation, especially in a gray area, would only increase the problem and not
solve it. Unfortunately it also provides some justification for future abuse
within the .admin structure, so at some point this will have to be better
defined. If we have rules, we need to enforce the rules as equally as possible,
or they become meaningless over time.)
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) I don't think that looking at only priveledges is a more accurate way to look at these issues. I think you only address part of the issue. The P&P and ToU already define everything as priveledges, but this means they can be taken away. Rights (...) (20 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) I would be interested to hear the rationale behind that statement, specifically why it is more of a safety valve than majority decision. The reason I ask is that I, as a non-admin, see it as *removing* a safety valve. ROSCO (20 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) In other words, we should complain to Todd and Suzanne directly? Either that or hope that the day will come when Todd and Suzanne will "let go" of Lugnet so that Lugnet really can become more democratic. Note that I mean no disrespect for (...) (20 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) Just to let you know, this feeling is not limited to NELUG. In fact it is an international concern. If Larry were not an admin I wouldn't care, but he *is* and admin and therefore it affects LUGNET significantly. Unfortunatly there is no (...) (20 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
26 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
|
|
|
|
