Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> I just read an article about this [1]. To summarize, in a volunteer >> community, there needs to be more people enforcing the rules than >> people breaking them. A small group of proctors doesn't work -- we need >> everyone to join in to enforce our standards when someone violates them. > > This was actually one of my primary motivators for calling for the > disbanding of the proctors, as KingTaco and I had already had several > discussions on the new list and I felt having a larger pool of potential > "proctors" helped us out much more than the small group ever could do. Yeah, that's why you posted such a clear-cut rational analysis of the situation. Oh no wait you didn't; that's why as a Council member, you discussed it with the Proctors your team had initiated before "calling for their disbanding". Hmm.
> Plus, the Council failed the proctors. I don't mean by disbanding them. > Hopefully, they'll see in time that it was for the best. We failed them > by not providing a better direction and clearer goals *before* we sent > them on their way. > No you provided a very clear direction as I recall. The need for moderation of non-devs as well as devs had been discussed fully on the list. The real failure was in slating them so publically, without prior discussion, the first time they ever asked everyone to back off for 24 hours. Really heavy and uncool of them, that was. And now instead of dealing with the fact that it's your devs who flame, you want to set devs up to moderate users. Good luck with cloud-cuckoo land. I guess it's almost as much fun as virtual reality. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
