On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 17:00, Kristen L. Kellick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Well... but who's going to pick the co-maintainer, whether they're a regular co-maintainer or just an "emergency backup" maintainer? If a current maintainer is going to pick them, then they'd have to know them... at least well enough to trust them with their community, I would think. And if someone other than a maintainer is going to pick them, I foresee drama. Imagine if the backup maintainer removes the owner as maintainer, and two minutes later the owner decides to come back to activity and finds out that they were kicked out of their own community by someone they never intended to run the place. > Under the scenario given by Denny, if UserA had set UserC up as > co-maintainer or the "drop-dead" contact, as soon as the servers > noticed that UserA hadn't [posted/logged in] in the last 90 days, comm > maintainership would automatically transfer to UserC before TrollB > shows up. UserA could be dropped from the maintainer list, but still > be listed as a member, until such time as their account was active > again. UserC could get an e-mail alert saying "Hey, we've noticed > that the maintainer of the $gadget comm hasn't logged in during the > last 90 days. We're giving you control of the community. If you're > not interested, please designate someone else in the comm for this > job." > > Clear as mud? I still don't see the benefits of this email and opt-in scheme over just having UserA set up UserC as a regular co-maintainer. Then when TrollB shows up, UserC will have been a co-maintainer all along and will be able to do what it takes (perhaps after waiting for UserA to do his thing first and noticing that he seems to be AWOL). Having multiple maintainers is always^Woften good. Cheers, -- Philip Newton <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
