Ah, yes. You're right. --- On Mon, 1/26/09, Lassarina Aoibhell <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Lassarina Aoibhell <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DW Discuss] Inactive maintainer > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 12:18 PM > 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
