Received: from localhost ([::1]:45066 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1auZyJ-0001aC-I8; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:26:15 -0700 Received: from mail-lf0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]:34223) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1auZyC-0001Zq-De for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:26:13 -0700 Received: by mail-lf0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j11so110437785lfb.1 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:26:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BwPnXkISkOWTRHlW3+RO9Cj1T/C4/dfbZ/yfZPI74bU=; b=PzdUiURAK0LpBj+ULxryC8/E8Rmv+w+yYgbpBTAVeSJaXXcZ5r+nIoVbUUe8qg0yoB lr71oefR0yvJw3YgaSWaijMG2ezdeJ9iTmqyMifJ9GsCiW3mdEwJKYzqijIfDy+ErRE8 CKMe0F7CNqxrlvtytHcYoKMamGbLmGtMnL2dl43I0Q/zVj9sTTLjuk+JZcGtTG0kVjKv dDqxUj+gvinCTjCHMzWJbSC4h2C8UAMcJGkzokVUlvw1aBFnGEIGxbW17yFnTgC0HmuU 11z9cSp5GW9QQOG8mrW6H3XqWOf3TQbVH/oHaiiGj7Sk5husTGmOHmh342OUYThcAu/N /BwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=BwPnXkISkOWTRHlW3+RO9Cj1T/C4/dfbZ/yfZPI74bU=; b=G6T8My0qJzE6Ti1yjGVZO8iyPNMY9l4z26RssGgjS2eOdkTW4+TWa9uBJol8WCk8t7 CuElkKJcTX79DRyn+S6xBEJ/grgAauShXLiOPwUDqrj82joXq2gzhyYrNjaRkWRBLq+c GPbrxlwjxWwwH2w1iXy8LzHPlVtnp5SJy5SipEBu/z56etCHngtsDfGngVgmYLoVUOX8 wotiFZKZyOmyik4MzT6ePXpXUDzBl9Ug9B9xQVDjakfOc87qck1hxRdC9hgL9Gzfp7jt ZiBHFiDvjJmrw5Xpk7xnC3olbIb2mXIRr5Etl3fo7kHOWZY0nze3zflzKCW2bu/AKD/m 0OqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXyQOqzjNZIlKMwx8fCvF+EbfvHj1tEB36vCqw6IzIi/zUUXiZZ2A/dwJ8c+XQqtxDLIPRVCfj6gZLBqw== X-Received: by 10.25.42.13 with SMTP id q13mr13224623lfq.2.1461565561230; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:26:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.144.229 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:25:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:25:21 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Community Manager position? X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0693853497269482145==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0693853497269482145== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11410bc217db340531494034 --001a11410bc217db340531494034 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2016-04-24 22:08 GMT+03:00 Riley Lynch : > We have had international IRC sessions before, so I don't see the > challenges of scheduling as prohibitive. > And exactly what happened last time is that < 100% of members found the designated time uncomfortable. > Also, if we discuss the agenda before the meeting, then the meeting itsel= f > becomes not only shorter, but much more predictable, so it will be easier > for those who cannot attend for whatever reason to entrust votes to proxi= es. > > I, for one, would enthusiastically prefer a 2-4 hour session in the middl= e > of a designated night to our current arrangement, which makes it difficul= t > to juggle unplanned meeting business and everyday, non-LLG > responsibilities. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 24, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Gleki Arxokuna > wrote: > > > > 2016-04-24 18:59 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch : > >> With the motion to adjourn defeated, I=E2=80=99m picking up from lojbab= =E2=80=99s email >> of April 16: =E2=80=9CNew Business, anyone?=E2=80=9D >> >> On March 18, I moved that we accept BPFK=E2=80=99s report on dotside and= on March >> 24 it was deemed to have passed without opposition.I don=E2=80=99t think= that >> further action is required, but someone please object if this is not >> correct. >> >> I agree entirely with selpa=E2=80=99i: It=E2=80=99s not helpful for LLG = to micro-manage a >> web site that is almost exclusively powered by volunteer efforts. >> >> I regret that guskant and gleki are at odds about the maintenance of the >> web site. Both of them have invested a lot of time into expanding and th= e >> content and keeping it fresh. In the case of gleki, he also administered >> the LMW before it became the official site, so perhaps any confusion abo= ut >> his role comes from privileges that carried over after LMW became the ma= in >> web site. >> >> My understanding is that as Secretary, the maintenance of pages that are >> deemed official fall under my responsibilities. I have not made an effor= t >> to police changes to those pages, but most just to see that pages that a= re >> unambiguously =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D are tagged as such, and receive= updates when the >> membership or board takes actions. >> >> I think gleki deserves credit for picking up the slack administratively. >> He has taken care to empower other members of the community to administe= r >> the wiki and various other online initiatives that he has started. I don= =E2=80=99t >> always agree with his decisions, but they are often decisions that someo= ne >> needs to make. When we have disagreed, I have found that we have been ab= le >> to reach compromises. >> >> I think it makes sense to formalize that role, not to =E2=80=9Cdeprive= =E2=80=9D gleki or >> anyone else of various powers, but to distribute responsibilities with >> greater transparency and accountability. I can image such a position hav= ing >> a title such as =E2=80=9Ccommunity manager=E2=80=9D, entailing the admin= istration of LLG=E2=80=99s >> various social media accounts, and the day to day operations of the web >> site. This would be distinguished from the pre-existing =E2=80=9Cweb mas= ter=E2=80=9D >> position, which appears to include the administration of the web servers= , >> supporting databases, domain registration and name service. >> >> Unless there is an immediate consensus on such a position, as well as a >> candidate to fill it, I recommend that we defer actionable discussion un= til >> the 2016 meeting. >> >> I may have already mentioned this, but I would favor changing the way we >> run meeting to something along the lines of what lojbab proposed, with >> discussion of the agenda happening in email before the meeting, and then >> the actual business of the meeting in an IRC session. > > > Well, there is low probability of doing that only in IRC because we cover > the whole globe so > for any fixed time zo'u: for some of us it would be unsuitable. > However, some members (even if 90% of them) can discuss in IRC, then post > resume of their discussion with half-decisions marked or common position > formed to allow in the email part of the meeting to confirm their votes a= nd > to allow others not present at IRC to vote or comment via e-mail. > > > The Language Creation Society does it this way, and having observed one o= f >> their meetings, I think it=E2=80=99s a model worth emulating. It would d= efinitely >> help us to keep to a more manageable schedule. >> >> =E2=80=94Riley >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a11410bc217db340531494034 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2016-04-24 22:08 GMT+03:00 Riley Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com><= /span>:
We have ha= d international IRC sessions before, so I don't see the challenges of s= cheduling as prohibitive.=C2=A0

And exactly what happened last time is that < 100% of members found the= designated time uncomfortable.


Also, if we discuss the agend= a before the meeting, then the meeting itself becomes not only shorter, but= much more predictable, so it will be easier for those who cannot attend fo= r whatever reason to entrust votes to proxies.

I, = for one, would enthusiastically prefer a 2-4 hour session in the middle of = a designated night to our current arrangement, which makes it difficult to = juggle unplanned meeting business and everyday, non-LLG responsibilities.= =C2=A0

Sent from my iPhone

On A= pr 24, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:=



2016-04-24 18:59 GMT+03:00= Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>:
With the motion to adjourn defeated, I=E2=80=99m picki= ng up from lojbab=E2=80=99s email of April 16: =E2=80=9CNew Business, anyon= e?=E2=80=9D

On March 18, I moved that we accept BPFK=E2=80=99s report on dotside and on= March 24 it was deemed to have passed without opposition.I don=E2=80=99t t= hink that further action is required, but someone please object if this is = not correct.

I agree entirely with selpa=E2=80=99i: It=E2=80=99s not helpful for LLG to = micro-manage a web site that is almost exclusively powered by volunteer eff= orts.

I regret that guskant and gleki are at odds about the maintenance of the we= b site. Both of them have invested a lot of time into expanding and the con= tent and keeping it fresh. In the case of gleki, he also administered the L= MW before it became the official site, so perhaps any confusion about his r= ole comes from privileges that carried over after LMW became the main web s= ite.

My understanding is that as Secretary, the maintenance of pages that are de= emed official fall under my responsibilities. I have not made an effort to = police changes to those pages, but most just to see that pages that are una= mbiguously =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D are tagged as such, and receive updat= es when the membership or board takes actions.

I think gleki deserves credit for picking up the slack administratively. He= has taken care to empower other members of the community to administer the= wiki and various other online initiatives that he has started. I don=E2=80= =99t always agree with his decisions, but they are often decisions that som= eone needs to make. When we have disagreed, I have found that we have been = able to reach compromises.

I think it makes sense to formalize that role, not to =E2=80=9Cdeprive=E2= =80=9D gleki or anyone else of various powers, but to distribute responsibi= lities with greater transparency and accountability. I can image such a pos= ition having a title such as =E2=80=9Ccommunity manager=E2=80=9D, entailing= the administration of LLG=E2=80=99s various social media accounts, and the= day to day operations of the web site. This would be distinguished from th= e pre-existing =E2=80=9Cweb master=E2=80=9D position, which appears to incl= ude the administration of the web servers, supporting databases, domain reg= istration and name service.

Unless there is an immediate consensus on such a position, as well as a can= didate to fill it, I recommend that we defer actionable discussion until th= e 2016 meeting.

I may have already mentioned this, but I would favor changing the way we ru= n meeting to something along the lines of what lojbab proposed, with discus= sion of the agenda happening in email before the meeting, and then the actu= al business of the meeting in an IRC session.

Well, there is low probability of doing that only in IRC because we cove= r the whole globe so
for any fixed time zo'u: for some of us it wou= ld be unsuitable.
However, some members (even if 90% of them) can= discuss in IRC, then post resume of their discussion with half-decisions m= arked or common position formed to allow in the email part of the meeting t= o confirm their votes and to allow others not present at IRC to vote or com= ment via e-mail.


The Language Creation Society does it this way, and having observe= d one of their meetings, I think it=E2=80=99s a model worth emulating. It w= ould definitely help us to keep to a more manageable schedule.

=E2=80=94Riley


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

___________________= ____________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-= members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailma= n/listinfo/llg-members
<= br>_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs


--001a11410bc217db340531494034-- --===============0693853497269482145== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============0693853497269482145==--