Date:         Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:58:24 -0400
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Friday moderation discussion - Starting point
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Sorry I'm late Volks, I fell asleep half an hour before I was going
to post and forgot earlier this morning.  Here's the recap, and
kindly remember that things will work better if y'all take the time
to quote only parts of previous messages (including this one) that
you're actually replying to.  I hope the discussion will be both
fruitful and enjoyable and that the things I mention as talking
points will be useful to catalyze it.

N.B. - It's been pointed out that I neglected to mention that David
Marshall moderated after Coyote and before Tom Carrington.  I
apologize for forgetting that; all these Volks have worked hard for
us and the list.

My lateness notwithstanding, I'll say again that this is a strict
Friday discussion; "accidental" leaking over into Saturday is not
ok.  Friday for these purposes runs from midnight Eastern (GMT-4) to
midnight Pacific (GMT-7) time.

Yours,
David

I wrote:
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.


--
David Beierl -- dbeierl@attglobal.net