I'm not sure that requiring the appointment of a 2IC is the best idea - many people on LJ, for example, create a closed community solely to post their icons, fiction, art, etc. and the community is never intended to be used by more than one person. In this case, appointing a second-in-command rather defeats the purpose.
Lassarina Aoibhell Webmaster, The RPG Place http://www.rpgplace.net On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wahiaronkwas d <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > --- On Mon, 1/26/09, Kristen L. Kellick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Kristen L. Kellick <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [DW Discuss] Inactive maintainer > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 11:00 AM > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Philip Newton > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 16:29, Denny > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 10:19 -0500, Emily Ravenwood > > wrote: > > >>> What happens when the maintainer of a > > community is inactive on the > > >>> service for a long time? > > >>> > > >>> What appears to be a standing LJ policy *on > > paper*, that a comm with > > >>> a long-inactive maintainer will have a new > > maintainer appointed > > >>> randomly from the members, has been put into > > practice on LJ and seems > > >>> to be occasioning some bad reactions. I have > > no idea how > > >>> "inactivity" was defined or what > > measures may have been taken to > > >>> contact the maintainer, all I saw was the > > notice that one chosen > > >>> member got. > > >> > > >> For IRC channels on freenode, it's possible to > > appoint a 'backup' > > >> channel owner, who gains control automagically if > > the main channel > > >> owner's account goes inactive (defined as > > 'not used for more than 90 > > >> days') and gets deleted. It might be good to > > have a 'fallback' > > >> maintainer setting on DW? > > > > > > You can already have multiple maintainers, so if you > > want to make sure > > > there'll be someone around if you drop off the > > face of the earth, you > > > can add a co-maintainer or twelve. > > > > > > I'm not sure whether giving someone maintainership > > automagically only > > > on inactivity of the community's maintainer -- but > > not before -- would > > > be useful. Presumably, the person who would > > "succeed" the maintainer > > > would be someone the original maintainer trusts, so > > they could become > > > a co-maintainer right away IMO. > > > > Many communities can get along just fine without a > > maintainer until a > > troll or TOS violation comes up. That's the point > > where not having to > > wait for someone to notice a/the maintainer has had to > > "drop-dead" to > > LJ due to an attack of Real Life would be handy. Also > > depending on > > the community, a co-maintainer or replacement maintainer > > would not > > necessarily have to be someone who knows the original > > maintainer > > directly; they could be someone who simply has a vested > > interest in > > the subject matter of the comm. > > Wouldn't it be more useful to require a community to have the person who > created the community appoint a second in command? It might be irritating, > but solve at least some of the angst. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dw-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss >
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
