--- On Mon, 1/26/09, Kristen L. Kellick <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Kristen L. Kellick <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [DW Discuss] Inactive maintainer
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 11:00 AM
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Philip Newton
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 16:29, Denny
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 10:19 -0500, Emily Ravenwood
> wrote:
> >>> What happens when the maintainer of a
> community is inactive on the
> >>> service for a long time?
> >>>
> >>> What appears to be a standing LJ policy *on
> paper*, that a comm with
> >>> a long-inactive maintainer will have a new
> maintainer appointed
> >>> randomly from the members, has been put into
> practice on LJ and seems
> >>> to be occasioning some bad reactions. I have
> no idea how
> >>> "inactivity" was defined or what
> measures may have been taken to
> >>> contact the maintainer, all I saw was the
> notice that one chosen
> >>> member got.
> >>
> >> For IRC channels on freenode, it's possible to
> appoint a 'backup'
> >> channel owner, who gains control automagically if
> the main channel
> >> owner's account goes inactive (defined as
> 'not used for more than 90
> >> days') and gets deleted. It might be good to
> have a 'fallback'
> >> maintainer setting on DW?
> >
> > You can already have multiple maintainers, so if you
> want to make sure
> > there'll be someone around if you drop off the
> face of the earth, you
> > can add a co-maintainer or twelve.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether giving someone maintainership
> automagically only
> > on inactivity of the community's maintainer -- but
> not before -- would
> > be useful. Presumably, the person who would
> "succeed" the maintainer
> > would be someone the original maintainer trusts, so
> they could become
> > a co-maintainer right away IMO.
>
> Many communities can get along just fine without a
> maintainer until a
> troll or TOS violation comes up. That's the point
> where not having to
> wait for someone to notice a/the maintainer has had to
> "drop-dead" to
> LJ due to an attack of Real Life would be handy. Also
> depending on
> the community, a co-maintainer or replacement maintainer
> would not
> necessarily have to be someone who knows the original
> maintainer
> directly; they could be someone who simply has a vested
> interest in
> the subject matter of the comm.
Wouldn't it be more useful to require a community to have the person who
created the community appoint a second in command? It might be irritating, but
solve at least some of the angst.
_______________________________________________
dw-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
