Subject:
|
Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:41:09 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1584 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> The language regarding unanimous admin
> consensus to remove another admin is a safety valve more than anything else,
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) The admin team has worked on a consensus basis, and the theory (OK, my theory) was that if a fellow admin was problematic enough to need to be removed, they would be the ones that would need to agree about it. A majority vote system might be (...) (19 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
