Subject:
|
Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:05:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2036 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> 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.
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 either Todd or Suzanne (I've been posting
here since the very beginnings of Lugnet and participated in several AucZilla's
before they came to an end). But it seems that Lugnet is gaining a life of its
own since they long ago laid the foundations for this community.
> 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.
It certainly is unfortunate that the current situation seems less open, yet the
justification for it being closed comes from the retention of ownership by the
two people who used to make Lugnet feel more open than it feels today.
This is a sorry, strange state of affairs.
> 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.
I find this to be a very open, honest, and positive statement and is certainly a
step in the right direction.
Jeff
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
