Re: [Debconf-team] On finding a decision and IRC moderation
On zo, 2006-07-09 at 19:02 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (BTW, I'm not too happy with this delegation based system what we have this
> time as it already led to what I feared it would lead to: some people are
> more important and equal than others. I liked it, when I (maybe wrongly) had
> the impression debconf was organized by a team.)
I like it a lot that more people have seen the venues. This means there
are more experiences and a deeper understanding to base a decision on.
But I do agree such experiences should lead to inequality in decision
making. Surely they have seen the venues, but such knowledge should be
distributed among the others in the team, which had happened.
In the end it should remain a decision by the team as a whole.
> This believe, "if we dont learn to manage to talk with each other, we have
> lost already", is also one of the reasons why I disliked the moderation of
> the last meeting. Which I wouldn't call moderation, for a start. For reasons
> how it was done, technically and by the moderator, Aschwin, with whom I
> discussed the following proposal already.
I was a terrible moderator. I received a suggestion to use it, but was
soon DDOS'd and as I hadn't done IRC moderation before, I failed
miserably.
The method I used seemed reasonable at the moment, but was the worst to
choose in hindsight.
> So here the proposal goes:
>
> 1. set +m on the channel, so that only channel ops and people with voice can
> talk.
>
> 2. give everybody voice, who (beforehand) agrees to behave and to follow the
> moderator_s_ advice/demands. (Maybe restrict $everybody to people who have
> been active within debconf-team before.)
>
> 3. agree that the moderator_s_ are fine with "flooding" the channel by
> repeatedly saying "slower please", "only $nick1", "only $nick1 and $nick2
> atm", "shut up except $nick", whatever. While repeatedly saying stuff
> normally is annoying, it is also an effective way for a moderator to steer a
> discussion. (And it's useful to agree on this beforehand to avoid this
> discussion during the meeting.)
>
> 4. If people repeatedly don't behave, remove voice from them. And give it back
> to them, if they state in a believable way, that they learned the lession and
> wont mess up the discussion again. If they misbehave again, voice is taken
> away for the rest of the meeting.
>
>
> I'm not sure if this should be established for tomorrows meeting already (and
> if it does, the moderators should be choosen before the meeting is about to
> start), but I would like to use this in future for sure. To be honest, I
> don't see how tomorrows decision can be made in a sane and pleasant way. :-(
>
> If you keep this meeting moderated like it was planned when everybody except
> the delegates were muted, I'm likely to spend my time in a way that is more
> useful for me (*). Reading irc logs is faster in non-realtime :-P (And if
> you take this as a threat, then please explain why I should watch it in real
> time...)
This proposal has much better changes of actually helping the
discussion, unlike my feeble attempts during last meeting.
If my decision to partly use moderation during last meeting caused
additional friction or other worrying feelings.... I dearly appologise
for my mistake.
-Aschwin
Reply to: