Subject:
|
Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:19:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6716 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
As mentioned here, the
LUGNET administration team has been working on a Policies and Procedures
document (sometimes called the P&P for short) that will help clarify to
everyone what the various roles and responsibilities related to LUGNET
administration are, and what specific actions each role is intended to carry
out. It also includes such things as guidelines of conduct and information
about when actions should be initiated, as well as boilerplate for certain
kinds of notices.
|
-snip-
| |
The following community members have agreed to serve on the committee. We
would ask you that you give them your support, and input as appropriate, but
not hound them with questions as to their activities, as we have asked them
to not publicly discuss the draft till it is ready to release.
- Kevin Clague - USA
- Janey Cook - Canada
- Dave Eaton - USA
- Rob Hendrix - USA
- Chris Magno - Canada
- Huw Millington - UK
We have one additional member that has not yet confirmed, and who will be
announced later.
|
|
| |
I’ve been waiting for a couple of days for someone to jump out from behind a
tree and yell “Gotcha!”...
...but that hasn’t happened, so I guess it isn’t an April Fools joke after
all.
|
A Policies and Procedures document has been drafted by the LUGNET (note the
capitalization) Admin Team, as we said we would in the post I referenced. It has
been given to the Review Committee that we chartered.
I’m not sure why you think that would be an April Fool’s joke, exactly.
We said we were going to create such a document, and we did. The post was made
using a LUGNET posting ID. Has there ever been a case of a post made with a
LUGNET posting ID actually turning out to be an April Fool’s joke? I ask because
I don’t think so but perhaps you know of one.
Given the above, I’m not clear where the confusion lies, perhaps you can
enlighten me so that we can be clearer going forward.
| |
Which leaves me wondering, do the six named above, plus the mysterious
seventh, adequately represent lugnet’s geographic userdom?
|
The LUGNET Admin Team think the members of the review committee that we selected
and that we asked to serve adequately represent that segment of userdom that we
want input from in a number of important dimensions.
Geography was not the primary consideration, but it was a consideration, among
many. It was of much less importance than others, but I nevertheless thought it
was neat to include that info.
Hope that helps. If you have further questions please feel free to ask them.
We’ll give them the consideration that they warrant.
Larry Pieniazek
LUGNET Member #5
Member, LUGNET Admin Team
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
6 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
|
|
|
|
