board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

RATIFIED: Changing Admin's Name

Post Reply   Page 7 of 8  [ 144 posts ]
Jump to page « 14 5 6 7 8 »
Do you accept this amendment?
Poll ended at Tue 21 Jun , 2005 12:07 am
Yes.
  
85% [ 52 ]
No.
  
15% [ 9 ]
Total votes: 61
Author Message
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 12 Jun , 2005 11:07 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
I prefer 'shirrifs' but I' rather have something other than 'admin'.

About to vote.

_________________

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
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 17 Jun , 2005 11:05 pm
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Voted against, and although there are far too many "yes" votes to make a difference, I wanted to say why.

There are two issues here:

(1) What word are members going to use? This is something that should evolve naturally, IMO - such an evolution would entail the making of fond memories, jokes that oldbies will remember, and so on. If Ranger had evolved that way, just seeing the word would probably bring a smile to people's faces. Instead, I for my part (and I suspect others as well) will remember that there was an inane ten day "discussion period", followed by an unnecessary vote.

(2) This brings me to part two: what word will admins and others use in official contexts? Truthfully, I think this is and should be a matter of admin discretion. Yes, I realize that this is a democracy. Most of us, if not all, also live in democracies in real life. Stop, think, and imagine your own country. Can you imagine what it would be like if your elected officials requested you to vote on every name change, stating that such a protocol was the price of living in a democracy? Me personally, I would run screaming for the nearest dictatorship! We select democratically elected officials - both in real life and on this board - and we expect them to act in good faith to make minor, day to day decisions. If they do not, we have procedures in place to remove them. We expect them to consult us on the big picture issues, but not to trouble us over every decision that could have more than one outcome, no matter how minor.

As an example: if the Mayor of San Francisco (known for his initiative) decided that we should rename - jeez, I don't know - members of the City Council from "councilpeople" to "representatives", to reflect that San Francisco believes in democratic representation, then I would be outraged if time and/or money was expended on such a useless vote. I would regard this as a change that should be made at an administrative level. If, however, Mayor Newsom decided that "San Francisco" should be renamed "Frisco", then I daresay that San Franciscans would want to have a vote on the matter, so that they could indicate their resounding disapproval of the name [from what I understand of Bay Area culture, this would be analogous to renaming "Board 77" as "TORC" - or worse.]

For the above reasons, I voted no. I do not like this manner of changing either use of the word "Admin", and as such believe that use of the word "Admin" should continue at present. Personally, I don't care whether we call Admins "Rangers" or anything else, but I'm a little concerned about the precedent that having votes like this is setting.

At the same time, I'd like to express my appreciation for the system that is allowing me to express this sort of vocal disagreement, and take a moment to thank those who have set said system up for their time and effort in doing so.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 17 Jun , 2005 11:20 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I think the basis for this vote was to determine whether there was public support for the name change. Some didn't think there would be. Going ahead without a vote would rightfully have upset them as being counter to our principles, etc.

You make excellent points, however. Indeed we can't vote over every little thing. In the committee we have struggled with this, balancing the commitment to openness and member input against the need for us to, finally, just trust the people in the jobs to have good sense and judgment. It's possible to go too far either way—having Rangers rule the board as they please, or having them unable to do their jobs because everything requires a hearing and a vote.

We've tried to find fair middle ground. Time will tell (and amendments can be made if needed). :)

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 17 Jun , 2005 11:41 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
TP, thanks for your comments. This vote was, I think, fairly unique. It was, as I tried to explain in the first post in this tread, a product of a bit a glitch in the convention process. Ideally, this issue should have been resolved along with the rest of the article on the admins, but it was not. To be honest, if I had not become the discussion leader when Jn asked for a replacement (basically because no one else was willing to do it), I'm not sure that it would have happened, because I'm not sure that anyone else had as strong feelings as I did about changing the admins' name.

But once we did go forward with it, it had to be done this way. Anything else would have rightly been perceived by some people as circumventing the system that we had set up. That would have had a much more debilitating effect then the inane ten day "discussion period".

I agree that every little thing should not be put to a vote. For instance, I'm about to propose in the convention that the name that we decide on for the new History forum NOT be put up to a vote by the membership. Generally speaking, the creation of a new forum is up to the discretion of the Rangers, as long as a majority agree, and I think that includes the name of the forum. The Rangers should definitely get input where needed, but do not need the explicit approval of a majority or a super-majority of the members. In this case since the forum is so closely related to the work of the convention committee, I think it is appropriate for the committee to agree on a name, but technically speaking, I could have insisted that laureanna, Nin, Prim and I decide what the forum should be called.

But the name Ranger is different. You ask "what word will admins and others use in official contexts." The answer is "Ranger". If this change is ratified, that will be the official name of the position. Such a change needs to be ratified by not only a majority of the membership but a super majority. So I disagree that the vote is unnecessary.


Top
Profile Quote
tolkienpurist
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 17 Jun , 2005 11:54 pm
Unlabeled
Offline
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Location: San Francisco
 
Thanks for your explanations and thoughts, Prim and Voronwe. (Also, you are both superfast responders :Q) I think the logic of what you both have said makes sense.

I think you've outlined the conflict well, Prim. Where can we draw the line between superfluous and material votes, in consulting the membership? Probably a question with which democracies have long struggled.

I definitely agree with you, Voronwe, that whatever name that you all choose for the History forum does not need a member vote. It's good to know that (most) naming decisions and similar votes will be made as a matter of course - that pretty much answers my concern.

I gather that the name Ranger (or other replacement for Admin) is of great importance to you. To refer to my earlier examples, perhaps this is closer to renaming SF than the councilpeople/representative example. ;) If so, that's fine in my book, as long as these votes do not occur continually; you seem to say that they will not.

In passing, I'd like to note that I always feel hesitant to post comments like the one that I did above; I feel that because I have not invested the time in this process that the two of you and others have, I shouldn't disagree with whatever you decide. But then, I remind myself that a democracy exists not just for its leaders, but its citizenry as well, and would have little point if the citizenry felt unable to express disagreement with leaders...

- TP


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 12:11 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
In passing, I'd like to note that I always feel hesitant to post comments like the one that I did above; I feel that because I have not invested the time in this process that the two of you and others have, I shouldn't disagree with whatever you decide. But then, I remind myself that a democracy exists not just for its leaders, but its citizenry as well, and would have little point if the citizenry felt unable to express disagreement with leaders...
I wanted to highlight this because I think that others have felt similarly. But the truth is, there is no real leaders. The convention committee will disband before long. There will be no Rangers coming and going (and hopefully eventually it will be your turn, TP ;)). We are all, in reality as well as in theory, in this together.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 12:14 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
TP - there's one more superficially stupid vote coming up. :)

After the phase 3 committee finishes the remainder of the articles, there will be an Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Consistency that will comb through the charter for minor things that have to be changed. They'll collect the whole bunch or errors - contradictory articles, references to things we ended up not creating, etc. - and those corrections will also be put to a ratification vote because they will be, technically, amendments to the charter as previously ratified.

I agree with you that minor things like that should not require voting under normal circumstances, and one of the things the committee has to do is define what kinds of potential corrections might not need a vote. But all we've got to work with right now are the ratifications rules we laid out at the beginning, and everyone is sensitive about following them to the letter.

Finally, you're absolutely right about expressing your opinion about these matters. It's not democracy otherwise.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 12:26 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Voronwë there is a potential flaw in having three admins name and add forums.
As you say it only takes 3 admins to agree in order to create and name a forum.
Let us suppose for a minute that the other two admins are against either the creating or the naming of a new forum.
Then let us suppose that the three admins who started the forum all end their term at the same time. Then let us suppose that the two objectors get a new ranger to side with them and change the name or delete the forum.
You see admins are nothing more than posters performing a temp job.
I know this is a stretch, and I would hate that we have to vote for everything.
I would however suggest a notice detailing the plans of a new forum and the potential name. That way if there is any real disagreement the admins can rethink their decision.
And as much as you have strong feelings about the name admin, I have strong feelings about being flooded with "twee Tolkien" names.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 12:29 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I guess we'll have to trust the people serving as Rangers to be sensible.

If that turns out not to be the case, we can revisit the whole forum-starting issue and amend the charter. But, of course, if it turns out that Rangers can't behave sensibly, forum names will be the least of our problems. :)

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 12:35 am
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Yeah well you know where sense and sensibility get you.
Anyway I do think an announcement is a good thing.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 1:00 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I agree, Holby—it would be the sensible (and polite) thing to do.

It should probably be written into Rangers' procedures (the "how-to" notes in the Ranger forum).

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 1:15 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I think a good Ranger would always want to have a membership discussion on the creation of any new forum, without having to conduct a binding vote.

Holby, in theory, in two weeks you Alatar could combine with Nin or laureanna and decide rename the Hall of Fire "Voronwe's Folly." But I'm not too worried about you doing that.

And if the Rangers clearly were going against the clearly expressed wishes of a clear majority of the membership, I think that would be cause for reviewing the Rangers' fitness to serve. (If that's not in the charter, it should be).


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 1:19 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
At the end of the day we'll never cater for every eventuality. Witness the American Constitution and the surplus of amendments to it.

I've no doubt that we've catered to 95% of all possibilities IRL. The rest will come over time as and when needed.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 1:29 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Wise words.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 1:32 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
TP, thanks for expressing your opinions. I share them with you. I sometimes get tired of being the only cranky voice in what is often an irritatingly benificent, cooperative, harmonious group. :D

And Voronwe's Folly has a nice ring to it.


Top
Profile Quote
TORN
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 4:12 am
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Offline
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 2:30 am
 
MySweetChocolatedMorsel (it has been much too long since I last called you that) wrote:
TP, thanks for expressing your opinions. I share them with you. I sometimes get tired of being the only cranky voice in what is often an irritatingly benificent, cooperative, harmonious group. :D
You crank not in solitude, my sweet chocolated morsel and the-poster-formerly-known-as-Toilet-Paper. My current cranklessness is but a mere respite before the next onslaught. :x :x :x

And you know, if it had been Astro or Islander, I may have gone along on this vote, but Ranger never!!!

SIGNED,

THE RESIDENT MISERABLE POLTROO


Top
Profile Quote
Frelga
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 4:37 am
A green apple painted red
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4621
Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Out on the banks
 
Just FTR - I also voted no. I kept thinking Ranger Walker, and the thought of Vornowe in a ten-gallon hat and with a six-shooter is more than I can take on a daily basis.
Quote:
Instead, I for my part (and I suspect others as well) will remember that there was an inane ten day "discussion period", followed by an unnecessary vote.
Yes, and that too.

_________________

GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 5:06 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
:scratch
Can you claim residence in two places at once? Isn't that illegal?


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 5:36 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I love this place. :Wooper:

(Sometimes it's the people I don't 100% agree with that remind me most strongly of why.)

TORN, just you come and tell us what's what, okay? I look forward to the next onslaught. :x

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Winged Balrog
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 18 Jun , 2005 6:06 am
Marshmallow Toaster
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:20 am
Location: Kansas, USA
 
I voted yes for Ranger. Very appropriate name, and much more interesting than Admin.

_________________

[ img ]

[ img ]

It really doesn't. :neutral:


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 7 of 8  [ 144 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 14 5 6 7 8 »
Jump to: