feather wrote:
To be honest,
I contend the consensus approach debate until absolutely clearly defined will kill this site.
I believe the never-ending confrontations around it with no resolutions on the horizon may well have already contributed to boring the ass of people and them moving on.
It's not compulsory to take part in the discussions, it's not compulsory to read them or vote on them. I would hope that anyone seeking to develop the community aspect of the site though would be willing to form the direction the community takes and if their not that interested in such processes to trust the community (as they do now) to make such decisions.
Many of the decisions which could have/should have been made to date have run into brick walls because of it.
Not sure which examples you are thinking of but I think that's a very simplistic interpretation of events on certain matters.
For example:
Who makes the call that declares consensus has been reached?
When, With a floating, participating membership can that call accurately be made?
Everyone involved in the discussion being in agreement would mean consensus has been reached.
I've been thinking about your second point and found myself recalling my idea for 'an inner sanctum', ie. a group of members who have stated a willingness to bore themselves to death with such matters, open to all but not necessary to partake in the rest of the forum.
Apart from the 'c' word, The other elephant in the room to be tackled is the 'mod' bigotry, yeah it sounds an extreme term but one I feel is fitting.
To superimpose expectations upon individuals because of your experiences at the hands of other individuals elsewhere is kinda sad, insulting and deserves to be ditched, rather than accommodated.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. I think it's fair to say certain mods expected me to post certain replies on certain matters, and I often obliged, but it still shows how the schism works both ways.
Before you offer up the role, clearly decide and define what it is.
Only then are you in a position to assess whether an individual is complying with the expectations and processes of the role.
It's fair to the nominees or applicants that they have a clear picture of what is required of them and whether they feel they are confident or competent to take that on.
Absent that, they are setting themselves up to be knocked down.
Completely agree, although we have a bit of a time issue atm.
100% turnover of mods to date btw. Their fault?
'Our' fault?
More than okay
okay
don't know
not okay
no way
no idea if that makes sense or is even in the same topic category as what I quote 
