Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:00:11 +0000
Reply-To: Marius Strom <marstrom@MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Marius Strom <marstrom@MICROSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re: Friday moderation discussion - Starting point
In-Reply-To: <4d8cbbc3.9a66e50a.38b7.2a34@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have a few comments around the "list" that don't really fit into any of the items below so I'll just enumerate it up here, and borrow from your text where relevant. I'll caveat all of this with the fact that I'm relatively new to the list (have only owned my Vanagon for 361 days, but who's counting?).
My sense is that the Vanagon list was created many years ago, during the time of 80x25 terminals. I think a lot of the historic moderation "guidelines" stem from the lists' history, and may not have been re-assessed since then. Perhaps this discussion is the time to start bringing some of these questions to the surface and making considerations of them. It also seems that some here are reticent to "modernize" the list, which I think speaks to the fact that we're driving 20+ year old cars and not buying whatever comes out that's new. ;)
I understand that moderating a list is a completely thankless activity. So, let me start by briefly saying thanks to David and BenT (and anyone who moderated before my time). I have experience in thankless activities - until recently, I was president of my homeowner's association. You want to talk about thankless. :)
I'd posit that moderation may not be the most effective tool, especially in the "instant" email communications system such as this list. As an example, often times mods will come in and ask for a mail thread to be shut down. However, while the mods are asking in response #1, 53 guys are already responding to response #2. I find it difficult to expect in this type of forum that per-message or per-subject moderation can be terribly successful. It works on a web forum better as the moderator can lock the thread preventing further discussion. Here, the only real recourse you have is to suspend someone's posting privileges.
> The community folks are gradually starting to chafe a bit more and feel the balance is too far toward the gearheads.
I'm not sure that you explicitly need a 'technical' and a 'community' moderator, so long as the moderators in question understand that there are boundaries to both areas. If there's frustration between the contingent elements (community vs. gearhead), perhaps the best solution is to offer to split the list into its natural constituents. If a split were to happen, I'd say the community list becomes more of a chatty list - where there is no Friday-only-NVC rule.
> 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.
I think this is difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Ultimately, the guy (or gal) who owns the mailing list configuration is in charge here. Using the examples you outlined below, say I disagree with your moderation style and want to recall you. You, as a moderator, have the ability to preclude me from discussing or kicking off a recall attempt. So, a moderator has the ability to prevent their own recall, which defeats the purpose of a recall process. I'd say that if we're at a point where we've got 5 people disagreeing with a moderator enough to ask them to no longer be a moderator, I think we have a broader issue.
Managing communities (I use the definition here of a community as this mailing list, not the communities vs. gearheads definition) like this is difficult, and we should all agree to some general guiding principles and we should all operate under it. These guiding principles should be written down somewhere and discoverable. As a new member, it was difficult for me to learn the ins and outs of what's allowed vs. not. I suspect I'm still learning it. We should have an appointed few (perhaps more than two) that polices the egregious stuff, but the little stuff should slide. As an example, in my opinion the random f-bomb on the list (or questionably agreeable acronym) is fully appropriate. I'd bet we'd be hard-pressed to find someone here who hasn't uttered something shrewd to their own ride once-in-a-while. Granted, members of the community should use the same consideration that they'd use in their day-to-day life, while out walking on the street. It's not appropriate to string together a series of f-bombs targeted at someone for the sake of doing it, but it is appropriate to cuss at the f'ing design of the cooling tower (as an example) :).
My initial thoughts. I probably have more, but have to get to a meeting here at work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of David Beierl
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 8:58 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Friday moderation discussion - Starting point
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.
