Subject:
|
Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:57:49 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1552 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> 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.
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 cannot be taken away.
I should have the right to fair and just treatement by the LTT and the Admin
team. Is that a priveledge? I don't think so. Permanent banning of me can be
fair and just treatment. The right to fair and just treatement is not the same
as being a priveledge for a member. Priveledge defines what a member can and
cannot do, not how they are to be treated.
Users provide no action when they are "treated" by LTT members, therefore member
priveledge does not apply. Member priveledges are defined in the ToU. Member
rights provide boundaries for admin's behavior with respect to members. These
need to be defined in the P&P, where admin's behaviors are defined and
constrained.
Temporary or permanent suspension of the priveledge of posting can be handed
down in a system that does not violate the member's right to fair and just
treatement.
> > 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.)
I'm glad you feel the way you do about .admin. I've been hoping this was the
right place.
Even though you don't agree about Larry's character, have you heard how many
people do? We speak in hopes that we may be heard, risking the wrath of the
very people we critique.
I respect your efforts in being careful in this case. In this case I don't
think that there is any easy way out. It puts the LTT in a tough position.
You are right. We need rules that allow reasonable feedback about LTT and Admin
behavior, and an official forum where it can be spoken in safety, and feel like
it can be heard.
Does the ToU really apply member to member when one of the members is acting in
the role of admin? I don't think so. We need a separate set of rules to define
member to admin, and admin to member positing priveledges, because the situation
is not at all the same.
>
> Kelly McKiernan
> LUGNET Administrator
Respectfully,
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) I think that's accurate, yes. (...) Playing devil's advocate, I would ask why you would expect that as a right? It's not a right I think you would expect from most other people. For example, I don't expect fair and just treatment from the (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 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
|
|
|
|
