MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B2E81D34-4BEE-4838-B281-D15B53F0375D@gmail.com>
References: <B2E81D34-4BEE-4838-B281-D15B53F0375D@gmail.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:21:30 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+hRZFwGzcjx2f40RKV=yw+XL+yzffqDG-+F0LE81Cu5Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
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: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2125778914695083094=="
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

--===============2125778914695083094==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b234cd17fa405313e4c18

--001a114b234cd17fa405313e4c18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2016-04-24 18:59 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>:

> 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 t=
o 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 the
> 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 abou=
t
> his role comes from privileges that carried over after LMW became the mai=
n
> 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 effort
> to police changes to those pages, but most just to see that pages that ar=
e
> 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 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 someon=
e
> needs to make. When we have disagreed, I have found that we have been abl=
e
> 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 havi=
ng
> a title such as =E2=80=9Ccommunity manager=E2=80=9D, entailing the admini=
stration 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 mast=
er=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 unt=
il
> 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 and
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 of
> their meetings, I think it=E2=80=99s a model worth emulating. It would de=
finitely
> 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
>

--001a114b234cd17fa405313e4c18
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2016-04-24 18:59 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:shunpiker@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">shunpiker@gmail.com=
</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">With the motion to adjou=
rn defeated, I=E2=80=99m picking up from lojbab=E2=80=99s email of April 16=
: =E2=80=9CNew Business, anyone?=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>Well, there is low probability of doing that only in IRC because we cove=
r the whole globe so <br>for any fixed time zo&#39;u: for some of us it wou=
ld be unsuitable.</div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"> 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.<br>
<br>
=E2=80=94Riley<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Llg-members mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Llg-members@lojban.org">Llg-members@lojban.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members" rel=3D"nore=
ferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe=
rs</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a114b234cd17fa405313e4c18--


--===============2125778914695083094==
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

--===============2125778914695083094==--