Timeline for Changing how community leadership works on Stack Exchange: a proposal and rough timeline
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22 at 20:19 | comment | added | Shog9 | Not sure there's any particular need to consider complaints in isolation, @Slate; IME, when a community has truly lost confidence in a moderator there will be many complaints to consider, including from other moderators. The volume itself is a good indicator. | |
| Feb 22 at 16:54 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | Well, these qs do have some easy answers. 1st - I think it would be a recipe for disaster to try force the LAB to issue statements on our behalf in support of changes they disagree with and I hope no one ever tries. 2nd - Yeah, elections have to be competitive, e.g. there must be a loser. Otherwise the appointment is pro tempore. 3rd - It's a fair point, but it's not a panacea. It's hard to cover every issue one could have with a moderator team when they must be treated as individual complaints. 4th - IANAL and I cannot comment on this. SPArcheon's - The plan is to elect, not select, the LAB | |
| Feb 22 at 9:31 | comment | added | starball | @SPArcheon annoying? pointing out issues? me!?!?! nooooOOoo I would never. in more seriousness, as an example, I didn't get approved to join the SO AI search SOfT, even though I'd been quite appreciated by the staff involved with the Staging Grounds betas for my feedback there, and I think I answered well to the "interview" question about how I'd respond to a feature that I think has issues. | |
| Feb 22 at 9:05 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | that was exactly my point. You say "but it sounds like a really smooth way to get someone else to be the messenger of bad news and get shot in a CM's place" but I don't agree that is the "cynical" view. The real "cynical" view is noticing how the LAB can easily be cherry picked to only include "friendly voices" that will agree on default - basically you just eliminated the need to interact with all those meddling mods who would go strike on you and moved the talking to just a few ones you picked... No more annoying starball pointing out issues | |
| Feb 22 at 8:58 | comment | added | starball | @SPArcheon if you have to agree on future modifications before even knowing what they are, what is there to "consult with" and "advise on"? | |
| Feb 22 at 8:55 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | "And what if you insist on a policy modification that the LAB won't support"... To be fair I had assumed one of the requirement to join the LAB was to agree on the modifications | |
| Feb 22 at 8:28 | history | answered | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |