What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

I'm pretty much every open days in the PHP Chatroom with some other regular folks and I just noticed that stars could need a little clean-up and that the room creator and only owner is pretty much absent.

Even on SO, he's not present since last november... (not an accusation, right, everyone doesn't need to be an SO addict right? ;) )

I think that the ownership of chatroom should be given to another person if the owner is offline after xx weeks or months. As a room can have many owners, we don't have to remove the ownership from the original one. But, we need some cleanup and small moderation like in the JS chatroom which is pretty well handled with 5 owners.

What do you think?

share|improve this question
1  
Just flag a message in the room for mod attention, and describing the situation should do - see: meta.graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/74/… –  Yi Jiang Feb 22 '11 at 14:18
    
I back this. PHP Chat room hasn't been as popular as JavaScript in the past, but it seems to be growing more, and we need give as much care and attention to PHP as we have done to JS. –  Greg Feb 22 '11 at 14:19

2 Answers 2

up vote 20 down vote accepted

Sure. In most cases, the room owner is more or less arbitrary, because it's just the person who was first to create the (e.g.) PHP room. But of course it makes sense to have several owners, especially for rooms that are quite active and have developed their own "style", and have those owners be people who know their way around.

While some sort of automation might not be a bad idea, well, currently there's no such way.

Given that he's by far the most active one in the room (and nobody objected when I asked), I've made ircmaxell owner of the PHP room; he can make other people owners himself then.

Update: This is now automated; if none of the owners of a reasonably active room has shown up for a while, the most active user (whose activity must also be above a certain threshold) will be automatically made owner. This logic would also have made ircmaxell owner of the PHP room, hadn't I done it manually.

The exact values are currently: "a while" means 30 days, "reasonably active" means at least 50 messages per day (averaged over 30 days), and "certain threshold" means 10 messages per day (same averaging). But we might still tweak those numbers.

share|improve this answer
    
I would have vote for ircmaxell or Gordon, so I'm ok with it :) ! –  Shikiryu Feb 22 '11 at 14:33
    
But an automation would be cool aswell ! –  Shikiryu Feb 22 '11 at 14:35
    
So what is going to happen with stars cleanup? ;) –  jcolebrand Jun 27 '11 at 14:57
    
So this is status-completed then? –  NickC Jun 28 '11 at 16:11
    
@Renesis: Ah yeah, thanks. –  balpha Jun 28 '11 at 16:23
    
Correct me if I'm wrong, so a new owner (that posts more than 10 messages/day) is chosen if the current room owner(s) haven't posted 50 message/day over 30 days. That seems a bit overkill for quieter rooms, maybe these numbers should be based on the rooms average activity. So, if a room owner isn't the author of X% of all messages of 30 days, then the user with the highest post count of that period is then elected? –  Sam Jul 26 at 10:00
    
@Sam The point of automatic appointment is that highly active rooms (like the PHP room in this case) should have an active owner to handle the room. For "quieter rooms" that's not really an issue. In the rare event that you can make a case for this, you can always ask for someone to be made owner (grab a moderator, post on meta, or similar), but it doesn't really require automatic enforcement. –  balpha Jul 26 at 10:04

Perhaps this could be another (5k|10k|20k) privilege. You could even make a requirement of 200 posts (or some other metric) in that room to gain mod status for that room. I don't see why only a select list of people should moderate a room, especially given the community moderated nature of SE itself...

share|improve this answer
    
Well, even if post requirement should be a great idea, it can also lead to chat flood. –  Shikiryu Feb 22 '11 at 14:32
    
maybe so many posts starred by so many users (so each of 20 users starring each of 10 messages) –  jcolebrand Jun 27 '11 at 14:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .