board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Current Admins Please Read

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 15 posts ]
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Current Admins Please Read
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 8:58 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Current Admins:

I had sent a PM to Leoba earlier asking for her advice about something, but then I thought it might be better for all current admins to discuss this together.

This concerns transitioning from (1) the current system of voting on each admin separately, to (2) the system of staggered terms that members voted on before the convention started, to (3) whatever the convention decides.

Our current admins and their terms of office are:

Alassante_Estel (Feb 1 to April 30, 2005)
Berhael (Feb 1 to April 30, 2005)
Griffon64 (Dec. 15 to March 31, 2005)
Leoba (March 5 to June 5 2005)

There is a vote up right now to replace Griff. (In my PM to Leoba I accidentally called her gimli - sorry Griff!)

First, Leoba’s term should run to May 31, not June 5. We have to make an adjustment somewhere so that terms begin and end at the beginning and end of a month.

Second, before the convention began, members had voted to use staggered 3-month terms of office, and I set the terms so that we would not be voting in December during the Christmas holiday. The terms were set as follows:

[Feb•Mar•Apr], [Mar•Apr•May], [May•Jun•Jul], [Jun•Jul•Aug], [Aug•Spt•Oct], [Spt•Oct•Nov], [Nov•Dec•Jan] and [Dec•Jan•Feb]

One vote is supposed to cover two terms: Feb-Mar, May-Jun, Aug-Sept, and Nov-Dec.

While looking at the poll I realized that we are out of sync with this system, but what I explained to Leoba is that it would be easier to change the system than to start tweaking the length of current admin terms. This is simply because it looks as if the convention is going to change the way the voting is done, and it will not be necessary for us to avoid a December vote.

If I change the scheme to the following:
[Feb•Mar•Apr], [Apr•May•Jun], [May•Jun•Jul], [Jul•Aug•Spt], [Aug•Spt•Oct], [Oct•Nov•Dec], [Nov•Dec•Jan] and [Jan•Feb•Mar]

then our current terms of office correspond to the schedule. But I didn’t want to alter something that is already in the document without confirming with others that the change is cosmetic - not a change of substance but one of convenience.

Third, there is no reason why we can’t be voting on two terms at this time, because the membership has already approved this. We could, if you wish, take the top two vote-getters and allow them to replace Griff (starting April 1) and Estel (starting May 1). Then we don’t have to vote again on an admin until June. There is an advantage to that because the convention is probably going to come up with something new and we’ll need a bit of space for figuring out the transition. If we move two people into consecutive offices now, we’re covered until July1.

I’m thinking out loud. :) Let me know if:

1. You think it’s OK to change the term schedule in the document so that it matches the current running terms

2. You think it’s a good idea to let the current vote be for two consecutive terms instead of one.

Thanks,
Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Griffon64
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 9:10 pm
Garrulous Griffon
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri 05 Nov , 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Moving away from the madding crowd
 
1. Yes, I personally see no problem with changing the term schedule in the document. The schedule itself is not important in from where to where it runs - it is important that it is there, and it gets followed, no more. The current terms could have been adjusted to fit into the schedule, but the schedule is only a means to an end, not cast in stone, so it made more sense to me at least to move it around.

2. Voting for two consecutive terms sounds great to me! There will be a lot of other stuff to pay attention to, as you said.

_________________

moment's hurt may harm or scar
but not inert nor beaten are
those who look and see afar
the healing hand of morning's star.


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 9:14 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
1. Yes

and

2. Yes

:)

However, I must make a minor note... Estel and I weren't "admined" on the same date, I'm pretty sure of that. :scratch Just not sure of the exact dates. I think I started one or two weeks before Estel, so I should be the next one to be de-admined after Griff (IIRC).

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 9:42 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Berhael,

Actually, then, we should be moving three new people into office.

I don't know about the off weeks ... that's something I guess you guys would agree to voluntarily ... but I do think it's a good idea to start making terms begin and end on a consistent date, like the beginning and end of the month.

Maybe for those who are being short-changed by that, they could carry on as temp admin until they've had a full thirteen weeks. Looks like the temp admin positions are going to run for one or two weeks anyway, the way the convention is leaning right now.

We can also have up to seven admins according to what the convention has approved so far, though the members at large have not yet ratified this. In any event, I don't think there's any harm bringing in a new admin at the beginning of the months while letting the old term run until the middle of the month.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 9:50 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
Sounds good to me. :)

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 11:20 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
It all looks good to me except for one thing....
Quote:
We could, if you wish, take the top two vote-getters
I do think that it should be in two different polls. The people voting for the person who comes in with the majority might vote MUCH differently for the next admin, with that first person already voted for. For instance, in the last go-around when I was voted in, there was one point where it was stated that Ro and I would be the next admins, as we had the top two votes. However, the majority of people who voted for me, ended up voting for Leoba the next time around - showing that, in a seperate vote, different people would be admins. I would be extremely unhappy with two new admins being voted in in one poll.

That, and take the example we have right now in the vote for a new admin - we have one person clearly in the lead, and FOUR people with equal percentages. Using the same poll to get two new admins just doesn't work in this respect.

My own personal opinion on this, I know, but this particular topic is extremely important. If it came down to a voting style like this, I would simply refuse to vote at all.

One way I *can* think of for having two people getting voted in in the same poll is simply this:

If two people work well together, or would like to work together, they could put themselves on the poll together

example: A poll could look like this (using past admins) -

Dindraug and Gimli
Estel and Eru
Alandriel and Leoba
Griffy and Ber

The only problem with that is, again, people could want one but not the other. I think voting for two people in one poll is just more hassle than it's worth.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 24 Mar , 2005 11:29 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Running more than one poll simultaneously is also tricky because the same person might win in both polls, so we'd be forced to take the runner-up.

I think in the future, when we are moving multiple admins into office at one time, we'll have to go with some kind of IRV and do it by PM.

Estel, how do you think we should handle it this time around? We need to bring in two new admins starting May 1. Other than IRV, I'm not really sure what kind of system would work.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Mar , 2005 6:08 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I'm not a current admin so I hope you all don't mind me butting in. I really like the idea of getting people who work well with each other together. Recently there were personality clashes that made admining pretty tense. I don't know if there's anything to be done about this but it is something to think about and Estel's idea could possibly be a solution.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Leoba
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Mar , 2005 10:23 am
Troubadour of Ithilien
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:04 am
Location: Bree, Buckinghamshire
 
Of course, you might not find out that you can work stormingly well with someone until you're actually doing the job. And surely an admin needs to be good at working with anyone regardless of whether they're buddies on not? ;)

I thought we were trying to avoid any risk of nepotism?

I'm not so happy with just taking the top two votes from this round either. I certainly know my vote was based on what we need right now, timezone wise. I would probably vote very differently in a replacement for Berhael. ;) So it needs to be clear right from the outset what the vote is for.

Possibly we could run off Estel and Ber's replacements at the same time though?



Jny, I think the screw up on my dates was my fault, as I edited that post you quoted to make it a clear three months. I'll be out at the end of May no problem.

_________________

Also found on Facebook - hunt me down via the MetaTORC group.

[ img ]

I just adore the concept of washing Dirty Horseboys!


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Mar , 2005 4:00 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Leoba - :)

Actually, I don't think it's necessary for you to be out by the end of May so much as it is necessary for your replacement to begin on the first of June.

Like I said above, there's no harm done if current admins serve their full 13 weeks. But I'd like to avoid a situation where, because voting was irregular in the beginning, every term begins and end on a different day of the month.

Regarding how many people we vote for at a time - I see that it's probably not a good idea for the current vote to be handled differently from the way it was explained when people started voting.

But if we take a second vote at the beginning of April for the two new admin terms starting in May, there's really no reason why we can't specify that the top two vote getters will become admins.

What happens in a vote is that the membership puts down their first choice. Not everyone has the same first choice, so if only one person is elected, those who voted with the plurality get their first choice and the others do not. (We don't know whether the winner would have been their second choice, their third, etc.) If two people are being elected, then a large number of voters get their first choice. Those who voted for the winner, we don't know whether the runner-up would have been ther second choice, their third, etc. but there's no reason to care more about that than we care about it when only one person is elected. The important thing is that a certain number of people are getting their first choice.

Doubtless if two votes were held there would be a different result, but this does not mean that more people are getting their first choice. It may well be that the same people are getting 'not what they want' both times. There's nothing magical about a plurality, in other words, that makes it better than other systems. It's really only a matter of what you want to measure. If you want to give the largest number of people their first choice, then it is better to vote for two people at a time in a single poll and give office to the top two vote-getters.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Mar , 2005 4:29 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Jn - if we do the top two vote getters as you say, I would really rather start it in a later admin vote, rather than now. If I had known we would be doing it this time, I would've held my vote back. Your arguments are convincing, but, personally, not convincing enough. With this voting system, it's just too easy to get a person in as admin that the majority would not want.

To be completely honest, it's not fair to those who have already voted this time, to change the type of vote we're having. If I would've voted differently/held my vote back till the last second, I'm sure others would have as well. If you're insisting on having a "Top Two Vote Getters" as being admins now, the only fair way of going about it - as far as I can tell - is to zero out the poll and start over.

example: in the recent vote, Prim is strongly ahead of anyone else. If we had a top two vote getters type of poll, someone who normally would've voted for Prim would see that she has a large enough number of votes that she will definitely become an admin. This person could decide that they will vote for the person they would have as a first choice for the next admin in line. Anyone who would've done that, doesn't have a chance to now, since the decision was made long after the voting began.

As for the two seperate polls solution, just have a note in bold saying that if you voted for one person already in the other polling thread, please vote for someone else in this one. Combine the votes from both polls, and you get your top two. We could do it by PM as well, but it would have to be an independent group of say three posters getting the PMs - to easy to mess with peoples votes.

Of course, if everyone believes that "top two" is the best solution, I will bow out and stop arguing it. There just isn't, at this point in time, a topic on these boards that I feel more strongly about. I honestly don't know how to convey how strongly I protest this idea.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Mar , 2005 4:46 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I can only reiterate what Estel said, wise woman that she is.

Regarding the current poll, when I came to vote, I saw that Prim was way out in the lead. I still voted for her anyway. If I had known that the second placed person would also become an admin, I would have used my vote more judiciously.

You cannot change the rule mid-vote. You just can’t.

Like Estel, I would suggest either two polls running simultaneously, or a second round of voting for the runners-up once the first is completed.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 25 Mar , 2005 5:20 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Estel - if we do the top two vote getters as you say, I would really rather start it in a later admin vote

Estel, I already said that I agreed with this.

Lidless - or a second round of voting for the runners-up once the first is completed.

I think I would prefer this option to having two polls run simultaneously because it can easily happen that the same person wins both polls, or else the current admins have to put different people in each poll and then you start getting a real mess.

But I also think it should be the discretion of the current admins to decide how to do this interim vote. All that the members have specified is that they prefer to vote two terms at a time, and the convention committee hasn't decided anything yet. Actually, two terms at a time isn't even an issue because what we have is two admins starting in the same term.

I'm only raising this issue because I became aware of it. The only point here is that the admins need to make a decision how to do this vote.

Meanwhile, since no one has objected to changing the schedule as it appears in the document to correspond to what we're actually doing, I'll go ahead and make that change.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Apr , 2005 2:48 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn, may I lock this?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Apr , 2005 3:15 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
yes. Thank you.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 15 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest”
Jump to: