Creation of Additional Major Categories

[Letalis]

Sorry, no. The discussion had been halted, not decided. The wiki on rearranging the forums was closed for a week, and you made the changes before it was re-opened and when it was still clear there was no consensus.

Unlike all the other Wikis, right? Snapshotting the Wikis -- entirely unnecessary. We should just wait until everyone can agree before Wikis can go into effect.

(I think we'd be waiting a long time).

 

[Crazy Liz]

Unlike all the other Wikis, right? Snapshotting the Wikis -- entirely unnecessary. We should just wait until everyone can agree before Wikis can go into effect.

(I think we'd be waiting a long time).

I don't think MNP would choose to snapshot a wiki while it was "closed for review" because staff wanted to cool down the argument. That's a sure sign that consensus is far off, and a bad time to take a snapshot.

 

[Letalis]

I don't think MNP would choose to snapshot a wiki while it was "closed for review" because staff wanted to cool down the argument. That's a sure sign that consensus is far off, and a bad time to take a snapshot.

I protected the Wiki before it was closed for review.

When I left it, members were arguing over whether Mormons were Christian. The sort of discussion taking place was ideological, not something that you compromise about.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I protected the Wiki before it was closed for review.

When I left it, members were arguing over whether Mormons were Christian. The sort of discussion taking place was ideological, not something that you compromise about.

You unilaterally protected the Wiki, using your Superadmin powers.

Compromise is not the only path to consensus. In fact, it's not the most common.

You imposed your own will and your own opinions on the community.

 

[Letalis]

I wanted to impose my will?

Was it my will to create a Mormon congregation forum, and then remove it?

Was it my will to place the unorthodox theology forum under Theology, and then move it?

I suppose it is my will to remove Liberal Theology, and then restore it?

My "will" has nothing to do with this. I'm trying to follow the "will" of a divided community that is unable to come to any sort of consensus, and then accuses me of impropriety for the confusion and inconsistency that results.

 

[sparklecat]

Perhaps no action should be taken until some sort of consensus is reached, then? It would certainly save trouble in the long run.

 

[Letalis]

Nothing is going forward ATM.

 

[sparklecat]

Nothing is going forward ATM.

Oh, yes, but I meant as a general rule

 

[Letalis]

Oh, yes, but I meant as a general rule

But then, wouldn't inaction in and of itself be a decision?

For example, if half the community said to create a People of the Book section, and half said not to, then by my own inaction, I will have sided with one group and angered half of the membership.

 

[sparklecat]

But then, wouldn't inaction in and of itself be a decision?

For example, if half the community said to create a People of the Book section, and half said not to, then by my own inaction, I will have sided with one group and angered half of the membership.

I don't think so. Taking no action is the default, and it's not picking sides to have a general policy of doing nothing about any issue until agreement has been reached.

 

[Letalis]

I don't think so.

What don't you agree with?

That it would anger a good deal of the membership?

Taking no action is the default, and it's not picking sides to have a general policy of doing nothing about any issue until agreement has been reached.

Taking no action would be choosing a side by default.

 

[sparklecat]

What don't you agree with?

I don't agree that inaction is making a decision for a side.

Taking no action would be choosing a side by default.

Not if it was a general policy. Choosing a side generally means one has formed an opinion on the issue. All you could be said to be choosing is a policy, IMO.

 

[Joykins]

Taking no action favors the status quo.

The status quo is stable, at least! Or at least, the forum organization was stable a few weeks ago!

 

[Letalis]

I'm all for taking a wait and see approach.

Be aware that this is a double edged sword, though.

 

[Joykins]

Rapid forum changes on this site have not had a good effect IME.

 

[Crazy Liz]

One thing to acknowledge is that different people have different tolerances for how long an issue can remain unsettled. I think rearranging the forums is something on which we can and should move more slowly, taking plenty of time for input.

Even though I posted a thread in LT letting the members know about the discussion, Joykins was taken by surprise when it was changed. There are some kinds of changes that perhaps need a minimum amount of discussion time before they are enacted. Merging forums is something that can't be reversed, so perhaps it should have been done more slowly.

I think perhaps 2 weeks of discussion might be a good minimum. But with this proposal, what happened is that the discussion was arbitrarily closed for a week. Worse yet, during that time, discussion was continuing at a Superadmin level, unknown to the members.

I think this is something we can all learn from.

I realize Letalis is interested in clearing his name, and I have been hard on him, so I want to clear the air, too. I absolutely do not think Letalis did anything in bad faith. I think his intentions were good, but he lost his focus on the process being wiki-directed.

All I'm asking from Letalis is to consider this a lesson learned, rather than a righteous action that needs to be justified.

It was not a good way of handling things, but it wasn't done out of malice. It was probably more out of habit, appealing to Erwin's authority. Some of our superadmins & deputies are going to need some time to learn to do their technical jobs in a wiki-directed fashion. Mnphysicist has learned this the fastest. He takes snapshots, but has come up with a method of timing those snapshots in a way that does respect the wiki process. When he came up with the snapshot idea, he posted it in the rule wikis, along with his rationale, and waited for feedback and acceptance of the idea before implementing it. I think the other superadmins and deputies could learn a lot from his example.

The "snapshot" method is a compromise with the wiki process, but since it was done in a way that was carefully calculated to respect the wiki process, the none of the members complained. In the future, when the wikis have become more stable, I think snapshots may eventually become unnecessary, but I'm not sure. It's a long way off, in any case.

I'm not sure the "snapshot" method is a good way to deal with forum reorganization. I think dealing with one issue or group of forums at a time is better. But we can take the time to discuss how that would work.

I do think that before a forum is moved, renamed or merged in the future, a minimum amount of discussion time should be allotted, and if the wiki has to be protected or the discussion closed during the announced period, then the discussion period should be extended so that the full amount of discussion time is given. I would propose 2 weeks a a reasonable minimum.

The last forum reorganization short-circuited the wiki process. I think it was a good-faith mistake on Letalis' part. I don't want him to be shamed, so he does not need to clear his name. All I am asking is that he say, "Hey, that didn't work out so well. Next time I will do something different."

 

[A New Dawn]

Since most wikis are of an informational nature, there is no problem with them being in a constant state of flux, but a rules wiki needs to have some type of concreteness without being concrete. Snapshots are necessary because we need to know what rules we are working from. With people constantly editing things, and without snapshots, there is nothing stable enough to moderate from. Even in the future, when things are more stable, there will still need to be snapshots because over time the rules will still change, albeit more slowly, and we will still need to have something concrete to moderate from till the next snapshot is taken.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Since most wikis are of an informational nature, there is no problem with them being in a constant state of flux, but a rules wiki needs to have some type of concreteness without being concrete. Snapshots are necessary because we need to know what rules we are working from. With people constantly editing things, and without snapshots, there is nothing stable enough to moderate from. Even in the future, when things are more stable, there will still need to be snapshots because over time the rules will still change, albeit more slowly, and we will still need to have something concrete to moderate from till the next snapshot is taken.

You're probably right. I don't know if snapshots will always be necessary, but it is quite possible they will be. I certainly think WRT rules it is a necessary compromise with the wiki process for the time being and the foreseeable future.

WRT organizational matters, it may not be, as one organizational issue may reach consensus while another one is in flux. Some compromise may be necessary, but I'm not sure the snapshot method is a good model to apply to forum organization.

 

[BelindaP]

I think that once the rules are pretty stable, the snapshotting can be set at long intervals, like 6 months to a year.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think that once the rules are pretty stable, the snapshotting can be set at long intervals, like 6 months to a year.

Or every change could be incorporated into a snapshot at the point where the wiki has stabilized, since changes wouldn't happen very often.