In-Reply-To: <B2E81D34-4BEE-4838-B281-D15B53F0375D@gmail.com>
References: <B2E81D34-4BEE-4838-B281-D15B53F0375D@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Karen Stein <comcaresvcs@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:27:40 -0400
To: llg-members@lojban.org
Message-ID: <94AECE00-61ED-4CDE-8FCF-AD201E42299F@gmail.com>
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="===============2364352832179149918=="
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

--===============2364352832179149918==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----BOFD9FBUTPT2RV9KZ9DHGA24QOLDG4"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

------BOFD9FBUTPT2RV9KZ9DHGA24QOLDG4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

I believe Riley's idea for a Community Manager position is a good one. I see no reason why such an arrangement would impede individuals including 
 gleki and guskant from making important contributions,which is particularly important given how much they and others have since in the past. I see this role as truely a manager, supervising and organizing (such as distinguishing what comes from LLG officially and what does not), but not limiting people's efforts. 

. karis. 

On April 24, 2016 11:59:09 AM EDT, Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com> wrote:
>With the motion to adjourn defeated, I’m picking up from lojbab’s email
>of April 16: “New Business, anyone?” 
>
>On March 18, I moved that we accept BPFK’s report on dotside and on
>March 24 it was deemed to have passed without opposition.I don’t think
>that further action is required, but someone please object if this is
>not correct.
>
>I agree entirely with selpa’i: It’s 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 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 about his role comes from privileges that carried over after
>LMW became the main 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 are unambiguously “official” 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’t always agree with his decisions, but they
>are often decisions that someone 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 “deprive” gleki
>or anyone else of various powers, but to distribute responsibilities
>with greater transparency and accountability. I can image such a
>position having a title such as “community manager”, entailing the
>administration of LLG’s various social media accounts, and the day to
>day operations of the web site. This would be distinguished from the
>pre-existing “web master” 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
>until 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. The
>Language Creation Society does it this way, and having observed one of
>their meetings, I think it’s a model worth emulating. It would
>definitely help us to keep to a more manageable schedule.
>
>—Riley
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Llg-members mailing list
>Llg-members@lojban.org
>http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members

-- Karen Stein  --
------BOFD9FBUTPT2RV9KZ9DHGA24QOLDG4
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html><head></head><body>I believe Riley&#39;s idea for a Community Manager position is a good one. I see no reason why such an arrangement would impede individuals including <br>
 gleki and guskant from making important contributions,which is particularly important given how much they and others have since in the past. I see this role as truely a manager, supervising and organizing (such as distinguishing what comes from LLG officially and what does not), but not limiting people&#39;s efforts. <br>
<br>
. karis. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On April 24, 2016 11:59:09 AM EDT, Riley Martinez-Lynch &lt;shunpiker@gmail.com&gt; wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">With the motion to adjourn defeated, I’m picking up from lojbab’s email of April 16: “New Business, anyone?” <br /><br />On March 18, I moved that we accept BPFK’s report on dotside and on March 24 it was deemed to have passed without opposition.I don’t think that further action is required, but someone please object if this is not correct.<br /><br />I agree entirely with selpa’i: It’s not helpful for LLG to micro-manage a web site that is almost exclusively powered by volunteer efforts.<br /><br />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 about his role comes from privileges that carried over after LMW became the main web site.<br /><br />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 are unambiguously “official” are tagged as such, and receive updates 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’t always agree with his decisions, but they are often decisions that someone 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 “deprive” gleki or anyone else of various powers, but to distribute responsibilities with greater transparency and accountability. I can image such a position having a title such as “community manager”, entailing the administration of LLG’s
various social media accounts, and the day to day operations of the web site. This would be distinguished from the pre-existing “web master” position, which appears to include the administration of the web servers, supporting databases, domain registration and name service.<br /><br />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 until the 2016 meeting.<br /><br />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. The Language Creation Society does it this way, and having observed one of their meetings, I think it’s a model worth emulating. It would definitely help us to keep to a more manageable schedule.<br /><br />—Riley<br /><br /><br /><hr /><br />Llg-members
mailing list<br />Llg-members@lojban.org<br /><a href="http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members">http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- Karen Stein  --</body></html>
------BOFD9FBUTPT2RV9KZ9DHGA24QOLDG4--


--===============2364352832179149918==
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

--===============2364352832179149918==--