 | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy —Ross Crawford
| | | | (...) 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 (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy — Kelly McKiernan
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy —Ross Crawford
| | | | | (...) I assume you mean they, the (other) admins? (...) Well maybe, but I'm not sure "should be expected to come to consensus" is very useful here. What if a majority do agree that an admin is a problem, but they can't all come to a consensus? At (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | |
