Roger E. Rustad, Jr. wrote:
> Two ways this can change -- top down ("iron fist") and/or bottom up
> ("grass roots"). (Or, perhaps some blended approach where you get
> consensus ahead of time and then just single handedly enact the changes).
Very interesting that you choose the connotation of "iron fist" for a
system that is managed and moderated. I guess for some, the approach
that doesn't allow them to be chaotic and disordered is seen as heavy
handed rather than being structural and providing guidance. To each his
own I guess - but when a very vocal minority wants a free for all, and
the group at large needs a more clearly defined structure, I guess there
is bound to be someone that describes it as a supposed "iron fist".
The managed and moderated approach (top down) can actually be just as
grass roots as the free for all bottom up environment. It isn't so
currently, but over time I expect there to be a large number of people
that share the responsibilities for things and are actively
participating in maintaining the group.
> As for the "food fights", that is IMO a sort of "cost of doing
> business" in a community like this.
In some communities, this kind of noise is even sought out and
encouraged. In this community, we will expect people to be professional
and stay on topic and leave the noise to off-list private discussions.
This isn't some kind of BarCamp list. We have a clearly defined focus,
one that everyone on the list clearly understands, and is capable of
knowing if what they are posting is adhering to.
I am guessing that you are meaning "in a community like this" to mean
something like: "with a pseudo-random collection of people from across
the Internet" or something like that, as if this means we can't have any
expectation of order. But the difference is: this isn't some kind of
random forum like 4chan or some kind of free for all like the BarCamp
lists. This is a clearly defined group, focused and professional. This
is a case where the definition of the group doesn't adapt to include all
variations of the community members - this is a case where the community
members are electing to be a part of the group based on its definition.
This puts the onus on the each member of the community to understand and
agree to and participate in accordance with that definition.
> Here people present ideas (some of course better than others), jab
> each other (gentle and not-so-gentle), and at times make inside jokes
> that can alienate outsiders and newcomers.
The problem with gentle jokes turning not-so-gentle and other things is
that they do alienate outsiders and newcomers - as well as regular
members. They alienate members who have been a member for years, but no
longer feel as if they can contribute or participate. These jokes and
things tend to turn a large group with high participation into one that
is controlled by a very vocal 3 or 4 people.
The other issue with all the jokes - is that things rapidly de-escalate
down to the point where either a moderator has to get involved, or
someone is offended. Either way, currently, *I* have to get involved,
so I'm changing things so we are all self-aware of the rules, and all
are responsible for meeting group requirements, or else we all will not
be involved in the future.
This may be a watershed year, but we will end up with a group that has
officers and maintains policy and order. I know certain people hate
democracies, but to continue to expect that David will just manage
everything by himself is very unrealistic. I am going to guarantee that
our group is professional, to ensure that is continues to exist over
time, once I hand it off to the democratic organization. The charter is
the beginning, not the end of this process. Expect to see a non-profit
or some sort of collective defined, initially to receive the domain
which will no longer be registered in my name, and eventually something
which may own various online properties, etc.
>
> It has been my experience that shrugging off "asinine comments" and
> gently switching to a topic that everyone can agree on (as Ragi did in
> his new thread about SCALE presentation) can be very effective.
That is a nice backup plan - but certain people "plan" on this approach
- knowing full well they can get away with running around and pushing
people's buttons, and then when they go too far, they can just try to
repair things by throwing out a generally friendly message again. I
guess they somehow expect everyone to take the bait and switch on some
decoy topic. How much better it will be for everyone when nobody is
going unprofessional and off-topic in the first place.
I do agree we need to switch topics at times. I actually (had I not
been away from home all day yesterday) wanted to start a good discussion
about SCALE, etc. I will respond to Ragi's e-mail after I get home from
work today - it would be great to at least have some sort of meeting at
SCALE, even if the presentation doesn't materialize.
Thanks!
DK
_______________________________________________
LinuxUsers mailing list
[email protected]
http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
