| |
Maybe we're approaching this from the wrong direction.
Forgive me if it sounds like my church background sounds like it'scoming thru,
but here we go--
First there was darkness.
From the darkness arose The Internet!
Many thronged to this internet and were pleased to find like-minded individuals
the world over at the mecca known as RTL
But, lo ubnto those fans, weeping and gnashing of teeth started to infuse itself
at RTL.
Fortunately for the FOL's, T&S created LUGNET and they saw it was good...
Many FOLs from all over the world flocked to LUGNET and were joyous in the
partaking of discussions about their chosen hobby.
As time went on, however, T&S drifted into the background, leaving LUGNET on
it's own course.
Now is the time of the Stewarts of LUGNET to arise!
Maybe it's time to think about 'stewartship' instead of 'administration'. It
may be the appreciation of the Mennonite tradition speaking, but 'stewarts' have
a totally different dynamic than 'admins'.
Furthermore, if we do have an 'open' (or 'transparent') way of enhancing and
fixing LUGNET, then if (and when) people leave their posts as stewarts (or
admins if that remains), then it will be easier for new people to step in, for
anyone who would be in a position to 'step in'to fill a vacant position, will
also more than likely be a devoted member of LUGNET, following all the 'ins and
outs' of what has been transpiring.
Again, a stewartship entails added responsibility to implement needed changes.
Another thing we're doing at work is 'taking ownership of an issue'. An 'owner'
of an issue doesn't necessarily mean that person has to handle every little
detail regarding the issue, but 'leads' the issue thru the various stages. How
I would see that working at LUGNET is probably what Dan is doing right now--
"Hey, a multi-verify thingy would be good!" says some suggestion.
Dan takes ownership--"I'm going the be the owner of this issue--I plan on
implementing this feature and it'll have the ability to do what I think we want
it to do. It's beta right now but have a boo and get back to me with the bugs
(if any). If it works, then we'll roll it in..."
But see, this was communicated to the community, and is in this 'trial phase'
and he stated that he was looking for feedback. I'm thinking that Dan will take
wahtever notes people post about this 'beta-feature' and incorporate (or not) as
is fit for the issue. If things are unclear, the communication is already
established and people can 'jaw' about it. Basically 'open to suggestions'.
Maybe it's semantics. I dunno. If it were me (and thank goodness it isn't,
btw), I'd say, "We're thinking about updating the ToS (or other aspect of
LUGNET). We feel that this section here is a little unclear/dated/whatever or
needs this idea in addition. We're thinking about taking it in this direction.
If anyone has suggestions or comments, feel free to chime in. Please remember
that we will have to implement this in a timely fashion. That said, once it's
finalized, it doesn't mean that it can't be revisited in the future--see how it
works for a few months/years."
I dunno. As Sam Seaborn said in a West Wing ep--"Is it just me or shouldn't a
major NHL hockey team just hire a sumo wrestler and make him a goalie?"
Dave K
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
