[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

list-admins and juries, was Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]

Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:48:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I feel we're really missing most sorely list-admin teams [...]
> The problem with that is that nobody is proposing any sort of a model
> by which these teams would be composed.

Naive proposal for composing these teams:

Each list will have up to five list-admins.  Each list-admin may be
admin of no more than three lists.  A list-admin may be appointed or
removed by filing a bug against lists.debian.org and getting 12 more
supporters than objectors for the change from last months posters to
that list.  As part of their bug closure message, listmasters may
decide to discount any irregular supporters or objectors (such as
people posting mainly to contribute to such a bug).

I hope that list-admins would have some way of updating the list info
page and would have their requests prioritised by listmasters, but I
leave the technical details to them.

Another nice touch is that addition or removal of a list-admin is a
bug, which is probably a good way to view it.  In an ideal world, they
shouldn't be needed to do anything, but I think we do need some now.


> I personally can't see such a thing
> going far, because that would create various rulesets for various lists,
> and require involvement of far too many people to be authoritative.

Those rulesets already exist, whether documented or not.  I also think
that involving many people will help to make the lists popularly-managed
- this is more about grassroots control more than authority.

> > Will its actions also be heavy, as the "big stick" mentioned in its powers
> > suggests it could.
> The main point, which apparently eluded you :) was that it needs to be able
> to have a big stick simply so that it has tangible authority. For some
> people, the authority provided by being a regularly elected body might
> not be sufficient to make them respect it.

So shall we top the big sticks with an axe, to show that authority in
the classical way?  (see "dict fasces")

I remember similar stupid arguments being used by governments
throughout history, but I won't go further lest the thread dies.
In short: owning the big stick is not a good way to rule.

> > Was the jury selection model discussed at all?
> I don't think it was. Can you explain a bit?

It was in the end of the thread-starter:

    "A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee or
    whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting
    a jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what
    punishment is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal,

I don't think the "no appeal" is realistic, but I believe there's a
lot to commend that approach for these disputes.  At least you get a
random chance of having similar viewpoints in the jury.

MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Reply to: