Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:31:05 -0400
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: MOD Re: the list owner ship, what a VW means to me
In-Reply-To: <vanagon%2011032013124018@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 01:10 PM 3/20/2011, Rob wrote:
>I know, it's 'our' list but the folks who have the power to toss me
>off (and yes, I 'voted' them in) because , just because, gives them a
>lot more ownership than I have. It is their list. <shrug>
There's a strong recursive element there. If this list has an owner
*as such* it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out it was Coyote
(and I mean a real person, not Loki/The Trickster etc - interesting
thought, though). But the spirit of the list definitely belongs to
the members; Ben and I are merely keepers of it to the best of our
abilities. I've got a bit more to say about that below.
>Owsley and a lot of others are part of MY vw myth, most of them I
>never met but they are as real & linked to this VW I sitting in right
<snip>
Eloquently said, and as the advocate of the community side of the
list I hope to have more to say about that on Friday.
Back to moderation. I've been thinking about this for a little while
and am bringing it up now to give folks a chance, NOT to discuss it
now - is that clear? - but to think about it and talk about it on
Friday. Understand these are my private thoughts and I haven't
discussed them with anyone, but I'm using moderator's privilege to
bring them up now.
I don't really know the circumstances of Coyote's handover to Tom C
except that it happened. Tom C evidently had more than enough and
dragooned Jim Arnott (who, though you may not know it, has been
tremendously important behind the scenes of the list since the
beginning) to take over, so he'd had more than enough before he
started. He stuck it out too long and abruptly couldn't take it any
more, and there were some difficult weeks that finally resulted in
Ben and me moderating, while Jim (so far) continues to administer the
list itself - for one thing we haven't yet figured out how to add me
to gerry's list of administrators, and I still haven't (mea culpa)
dug through the listserv manuals, light reading for a sunny afternoon
or six. And Tom C continues to provide physical space and donate
bandwidth but doesn't want to talk about the list except in emergencies.
I think that shows up a systemic weakness in how we deal with
moderation here. Burning through moderators isn't a wholesome way to
do things, and I speak as one of the present moderators. <g> Back to
that in a minute.
There has also been an evolution in how people view the list. When
Coyote or Tom were running things it seemed pretty clear to all that
it was indeed "their list" and if anyone complained about one of
their actions, someone else would immediately pipe up and say, in
effect, "like it or lump it, but shut up. It's his list, he runs it
how he pleases." And changes in moderators were closely held, with
the list being informed after the fact. That's different now, very
different. And I can't really speak to how Coyote or TomC themselves
viewed their roles, but I can say very clearly that Ben and I are
servants of the list, not masters of it. That servitude runs in two
directions; toward the original spirit of the list, and to the
present members of it individually and as a group. If at any time we
begin to feel like masters, then we're no longer fit to be moderators
and exercise the power that moderators hold to make and enforce
policy. Likewise if we fall below at least some minimum level of
skill we're not fit for the job.
Back to the systems. I don't know how Ben feels, but I personally am
very much enjoying moderating this list and seeing it be a place
where five generations of people can rub shoulders with a good deal
of civility and accommodation for others' foibles, and where for the
last year or more the moderators have seldom had to speak up. Don't
think it's perfect, don't think we're perfect; don't expect either to
be perfect. The community folks are gradually starting to chafe a
bit more and feel the balance is too far toward the gearheads. I say
"more" - there has always been tension between those two viewpoints,
with Ben and I each advocating for one of them and trying to keep a
fair balance.
So I think two moderators, each with an explicit tendency in one of
those directions, is a very very good thing and we should continue
it. However I also think that not only should we not burn out
moderators, but that in any case we should bring in fresh blood from
time to time; so I propose the following talking points:
1) That moderating - this list anyway, is not an onerous, thankless
duty but in fact if approached with a certain amount of detachment a
very rewarding one, and actually fairly well sprinkled with direct
thanks. It does require the ability to listen, occasionally
including to things about yourself you may not wish to hear; to not
take things personally, to respond to anger with calm; but not
generally at a very taxing level; to not obsess about mistakes. Most
of those come under the heading of detachment.
2) That moderators serve for two years on an alternating schedule,
i.e the gearhead being replaced one year, the community guy the next.
3) That incoming moderators are subject to recall by popular vote
with a simple (2/3?) majority of those voting, a quorum not being
required; in which case the previous moderator would return and if
willing finish out the term. Some minimum number of "signatures"
would be required to initiate a recall vote - 100? - and no
discussion about this would be permitted on list, even on Friday; at
the moderators' discretion an announcement might be made that
so-and-so had started a list to discuss a recall vote. Moderators
would agree not to attempt to discover composition or internal
workings of said group. In case of a recall, moderators would
appoint someone to verify minimum number of signatures and to receive
and count the votes and announce the total. Voting period say one
week, and votes could be retracted or changed. I'm well aware that
something like this could be rigged, but if we're willing to descend
to that level, what the heck are we doing here anyway? A lesser step
would be for the incoming moderator to resign, either for his own
reasons or because he and/or the other moderator had received enough
complaints that after discussion he deemed it wise. In either case,
the former moderator would again return and at his discretion either
finish out the term or after a few months for things to calm down,
initiate the process to bring in a new one.
4) That incoming moderators be chosen - how? I submit that two
viable possibilities, mirrors of each other, are:
a) a list of candidates be thrown up by the members, and a
choice made by the existing mods with the outgoing having final say.
b) a list of candidates be thrown up by the outgoing mod in
consultation with the other mod, and decision made by vote of the members.
I think that b) is logistically much more practical in our
situation. In fact I think a) would be totally impractical, so I
guess I shouldn't say it's viable.
5) That if a single candidate only is presented, the members can
vote not to accept him or her.
6) That if no new moderator is found, a further attempt is made at
three-month intervals until one is.
7) That there is nothing to prevent a previous moderator from
serving again, quite the reverse.
Let me make clear that I'm not the least bit tired of doing this and
so far as I know Ben isn't either. He can speak for himself. And
discussion/debate about this must itself remain a) a Friday subject
and b) civil or *it* will be moderated and given a week to cool
off. There's no hurry, no huhu, no cause to get feathers
ruffled. If we seem to come to some sort of agreement in principle,
or to a clear set of differing viewpoints, perhaps down the road a
few people can get together and turn them into a concrete set of proposals.
One last time for the hard of listening - I encourage voluminous
response to me personally, but no response to *this* post whatsoever
may occur on list. Early Friday I'll post the content under a new
subject heading and it can proceed from there. Friday in this case
will mean 0000 EDT to 2400 PDT.* I will not be tolerant of people
sneaking in posts over the time limit - your deathless prose will be
just as deathless a week later. "Not be tolerant" in this case means
more than just wagging the finger and saying tsk tsk.
*If people living outside CONUS tell me in reasonable numbers that
they'd rather have their local 24 hour day I'll change it to that for
them. Of course they'll lose three hours. <g>
Yours,
d mod
