> To be honest, I don't think it's that necessary to "sort" this. If a > community is dying then the more proactive members will set up a new one > and people will follow them across. Sure, it might be handy to be able > to take over and "rescue" a community, but it's not the end of the world > if it doesn't work out that way. > > Taking a community out of the hands of a maintainer within a week (which > seems to be what some people want) seems draconian and punitive. If the > maintainer of your community doesn't look after it well then the answer > isn't to take it from them, but to form your own. > > Andy
You seem to be assuming that a community is dying if the maintainer isn't paying attention to it. But I could name communities that have gone on vibrantly and strong for *years* after the original maintainer disappears into cyberspace. If the first maintainer disappears without leaving a successor, and the community is going strong, eventually something's going to happen that needs maintainer powers. Troll, change in community policy/settings to better fit current usage/DW features, and many more. If it's a relatively self-sustaining community and the maintainer just kind of fades away, it's not uncommon for nobody to notice the maintainer's not around any more until they need someone with maintainer powers and find out that there *isn't* one., or at least not one anybody can find. Now, for normal things like changing the community's settings, you're right that a week from figuring out they can't get ahold of the maintainer to the time DW does something about it is way, way too fast. But if the com's been hacked or picked up a particularly nasty troll, a lot of damage can be done in a week. Beatrice Otter _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
