Received: from localhost ([::1]:44304 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1auTms-0005rO-FW; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:50:02 -0700 Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175]:35960) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1auTmn-0005rB-2h for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:50:01 -0700 Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id o66so179258921ywc.3 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:49:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=1qMr1mVO88CjcjdgIMXIYeMlJ1n9x1Mjaix/wNiNfUM=; b=j5mQOF48aM8WyPqjld9QmYPo64Yop1MUFLtn2KFDrhIIcfM7On5ol0P/gDptiKQtVs l3VGtPnjYc1cgf7CtkRpZz6/+fIL8TlNikEYrXTxK35EQ886XZPKm0rp37ESntECaq5h bWokfUBpjnlcI8FmmUwFhK3Iw8TCDmAispPMKd5efI2OgSqutkXhH1A8obaRuVls8eqS erevVubjdMhqypZAA78shZ+JuxgDqh1nqS8ns4PNuEDC8iU60JRIVYTFBYnScUhNKmPf V8Z2hnt5gg4NhUVXb0G1uP4DLib4BCfAJLXBSUaiDtRwrikv+2ePpzk7q8nQsDFkAdKX Ff4Q== 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=1qMr1mVO88CjcjdgIMXIYeMlJ1n9x1Mjaix/wNiNfUM=; b=Y1eZxDN8B0HTNGBoqDS5o0WfVEZB3a3WrBqxXSDeBPlFyKIia+41JN/zhPPI3AU9e9 hs7a/eBm3eJUEoadyiwH9l0DtcDKIP3fRX25OyKeR+SSwLIeAkdc8bOClz+uXzm6K2AJ jRttH0XMWi81YPkUtC0Nl4F68xyCFASIDXuaE2XTwpwyf/WKSbUYOTVQMVf4QCVERnCm +gjuYAQIZBvuLRYn6ZLafVOxFGjpQgQuOhK3Lmc9oTmrhEc8LCqBn+tmKLVUWLluLvwG 0f1hbdMP9DpSSM7tJZBduYFB0OLfsU+522ESUL9NUpjB7u9nzunpvVxdfMYZm4danqVy rwhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW5hgh4inOUqtaQhRPjAqL4JxA/R1zUnzTI0QJsfdG+J73roG8l0yjjZzXaxuzVjW5qC2cCZnZfkJu4QQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.7.35 with SMTP id h32mr17687580uah.17.1461541790883; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 19:49:50 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks 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="===============3571405357197185494==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3571405357197185494== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c123e4a4522a5053143b7d1 --94eb2c123e4a4522a5053143b7d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or we can hold three sessions which are displaced by 24n+8k hours, where n is an integer and k is in {0,1,2}, relative to one another. We can even hold such sessions once every m months, where m is dyadic rational with denominator less than or equal to 8 in coprime form. But in any case, how do we organize such a meeting? At the very least, it seems to me that it would be no less effective than the current system. On Apr 24, 2016 15:08, "Riley Lynch" wrote: > We have had international IRC sessions before, so I don't see the > challenges of scheduling as prohibitive. > > 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 > > --94eb2c123e4a4522a5053143b7d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Or we can hold three sessions which are displaced by 24n+8k = hours, where n is an integer and k is in {0,1,2}, relative to one another. = We can even hold such sessions once every m months, where m is dyadic ratio= nal with denominator less than or equal to 8 in coprime form.

But in any case, how do we organize such a meeting? At the v= ery least, it seems to me that it would be no less effective than the curre= nt system.

On Apr 24, 2016 15:08, "Riley Lynch" &= lt;shunpiker@gmail.com> wrote= :
=
We have had international IRC sessions before, so I don't see the = challenges of scheduling as prohibitive.=C2=A0

Als= o, if we discuss the agenda before the meeting, then the meeting itself bec= omes not only shorter, but much more predictable, so it will be easier for = those who cannot attend for 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, wh= ich makes it difficult to juggle unplanned meeting business and everyday, n= on-LLG responsibilities.=C2=A0

Sent from my iPhone

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



2016-04-24 18:59 GMT+03:0= 0 Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>:
With the motion to adjourn defeated, I=E2=80=99m pick= ing up from lojbab=E2=80=99s email of April 16: =E2=80=9CNew Business, anyo= ne?=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

_________= ______________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

--94eb2c123e4a4522a5053143b7d1-- --===============3571405357197185494== 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 --===============3571405357197185494==--