a MAIL-related concern
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   
Author Message

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:08 pm || Last edited by sakredchao on Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:26 pm; edited 2 times in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

hurried votes? this is how things have been done here. phong, -=you=- were voted in that way. i did not see you crying foul when you got voted in there. no one cried foul when lotos was hurriedly voted in.. and he has the keys to the site.. he is one of the few people who has the capability to rickroll us. i'd say that vote was just as hurried (if not moreso as it didn't have the 5 week discussion window) and was a far bigger deal than choosing a weaves admin.
=======

does 1 or 2 abstaining votes disqualify the vote? 3? and if we have a vote that has 6 "yes" and 3"abstaining" votes, what does that mean? if they are considered "no" votes then we have, 6 to 3, with yes in the majority. and the abstaining votes get "steamrolled"... or do the 3 "abstaining" votes steamroll the 6 "yes" votes? we don't work on concensus here, we work on majority.

if they act as a permanent placeholder, one disgruntled admin can stop the rest of us from getting anything accomplished. giving any one of us "veto power" seems like a really poor idea. people can "veto" things and then not do any real work to progress what they would like to see happen..

i would not be opposed to "abstaining" votes placing the vote on hold for the period of one week per abstention, to give ample time for discussion on the issue and a new vote. this gives the dissenters time to figure out how they would do it better. the last vote had this.
=======

blaise, my idea for the public admin forum was to have all of the discussions we have open for public comment by way of "reply".. the easier we make it for people to give feedback the more likely we are to actually get it. if we leave it up to members to start a thread, most won't do it.

in the recent discussion on submission guidelines, we might have had participation from people like ED, with weave theory experience, but not administrator status. as it is, we rely on a few BOD members to hold entire discussions on things that, for the most part, people don't care about.. if you find 5 people on the BOD who care enough about any given topic to discuss it, you've found the rare topic people care about. opening things up to the public will give us more people who are likely to care enough about any given topic to work out the details.

i suppose this thread is a trial run. i would love to see some member feedback on some of this.. how would the membership like to see votes held? thoughts on choosing wording, abstention options, anything really would be appreciated.
=======

we probably need a better system to agree on vote wording.. that is the part of the charter that was not adhered to with the last (and most of the previous) votes. when we present a new BOD vote, we should have a poll something along the lines of,

(POLL)PROPOSED VOTE WORDING - new weaves admin.. and then a set number of votes approves it.. say 4, about half of the admins that currently participate in voting.. if the wording gets 6 yes votes, and 3 no votes, we'd have a difference of +3, not quite enough to approve the wording. our charter specifically calls for something like this. it adds red tape, but that may be the price we pay for operating as a group according to the charter

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1491
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:30 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Phong wrote:

And as it so happens, I did create a poll to give me information that I desired. And it got one gag vote and a halfhearted attempt to say 'if you don't like it fix everything yourself and my weave organization hasn't gotten the uber response I wanted and also the vote passed so hush now".

-phong


Phong, that poll was so full of snark I could almost taste it. The poll title alone screamed "This isn't a serious poll, this is my frustrated reaction to something I don't like!".

Please, present something concrete that details your vision for how you think the BOD should handle future votes, and it WILL be taken seriously. Being the loudest voice in the room might stir people to think, but it almost never stirs people to act in a constructive way.

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:51 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Deirdre wrote:
Phong, that poll was so full of snark I could almost taste it. The poll title alone screamed "This isn't a serious poll, this is my frustrated reaction to something I don't like!".

Please, present something concrete that details your vision for how you think the BOD should handle future votes, and it WILL be taken seriously. Being the loudest voice in the room might stir people to think, but it almost never stirs people to act in a constructive way.


I'm sorry you felt that way about it, but you're more than welcome to parry my snark with reason and thoughtfulness. I promise that I'll stop yelling for answers when I receive some. Or I suppose when it becomes clear that I'll never get any.

-phong, tired of not getting any



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1491
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Maybe if I understood what your questions are *exactly*. It's hard to ferret out the seriousness from the passive aggressive sarcasm.

Right now all I'm getting is that you're not happy with the last vote and the voting process. But, what are your questions? How would you change it? Could you put together a bulleted list of your concerns, and leave the digs/sarcasm out of it?

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:25 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

phong, if my vote wording proposal had been in effect.. and lorenzos vote was on wording, rather than an attempt to be the actual vote.. would that have satisfied some of your concerns?

the wording would have been voted down, and we'd have reworded it as a group.. and revoted.

the other issue i see is choosing administrators. we are potentially doing this again right now. so it is, yet again, relevant.. lorenzo proposed having an admin specifically to handle the announcement page. should we accept the offer lotos made to handle it, and let him..? or should we post an announcement somewhere saying, "wanted: announcement admin" to get an idea of who is interested and who would be the best person for the job..?

please, let's take a step back and quit arguing over what happened in the past. i know, i am just as guilty of this as others...today, even. i am trying to stop myself, step back and ask, "what now?"

how do we progress from here in a constructive way?

it would be great if we could come through this unpleasantness having grown to be a better online resource... instead of just fighting with each other.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 3 of 3. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:19 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: