A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
I think this whole question of "core" members and lurkers is very far off the point.
First of all, Shirky isn't defining core members as regular, active posters. He means the people that organize shit and do the functional stuff. The people who are coding (ita, Jon, DXM, Scola etc.) and doing administrative functions (Jesse) and the people who take the time to set policy (everybody posting here now). We just happen to have a fairly large core because a lot of people take the time to work on policy and procedure in Bureaucracy.
What he's arguing is that any online community will depend upon some people who give a shit about doing the grunt work to make it work, and those people hold the community together. Which he notes is Not Democratic but innate to online communities.
Anyway, I don't think we need to hash that out and everybody worry about their social standing and who gets to vote. People who are registered get to vote. That's how we decided there would be enfranchisement.
But if you don't participate in Bureau or Lightbulbs then you can't put things up to vote.
I think the central question still comes down to this:
Do you believe that splitting up the volume with multiple show threads dilutes or enhances the community?
That's really the only thing we have to determine. If people think it is a problem, then we should find a way to slow down thread creation. If people don't think it's a problem, then we don't have anything to worry about and we can just vote on threads as proposals come up.
I am always glad when lurkers show up and post. Kudos for them to bravery! Almost all the lurkers who have unmasked since I have been on the board have turned out to be Buffistas I am truly glad I have gotten to know. Lurkers who don't post and vote still count as Buffistas to me. They may be shy but still care about the board and all of us. People who register and do nothing else are more like visitors to the Buffistas, rather than Buffistas. I would be happy if they WOULD post and vote, but I think those of us that do either or both of those things are the ones who should set the direction of the board.
In conclusion: Lurkers, come out and play!
Can we just make Jilli our benevolent dictator?
Lurkers issue: I really, really try to keep up with this thread. But I skipped for two days as I was busy, and now I'm hundreds of posts behind. I've skimmed through to now, but haven't digested everything. That's an issue. My issue? Probably. Common across the board? Probably.
Do you believe that splitting up the volume with multiple show threads dilutes or enhances the community?
Enhances.
Lurkers, come out and play!
Is it wrong that I hear this as "Warriors, come out and play"?
Anyway, I don't think we need to hash that out and everybody worry about their social standing and who gets to vote. People who are registered get to vote. That's how we decided there would be enfranchisement.
This. This is also why I like a poll. Go poll, choose poll. I want to know how people use the board.
Or choose Jilli as dictator, which would at least ensure a stylish leader.
From looking at the database, 1547 of the 1839 registered users ever bothered (or managed) to click on the activation link in the email. I can't give any more solid or granular numbers about usage--I can tell the last time someone changed their profile, or do some arcane SQL to count everyone who has, say, read while logged in this year, but my head hurts too much to think it out.
Is it wrong that I hear this as "Warriors, come out and play"?
That's exactly how I was saying it in my head!
I think the central question still comes down to this:
Do you believe that splitting up the volume with multiple show threads dilutes or enhances the community?
That's really the only thing we have to determine. If people think it is a problem, then we should find a way to slow down thread creation. If people don't think it's a problem, then we don't have anything to worry about and we can just vote on threads as proposals come up.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I like to boil things down into concise statements, and I think this pretty much sums up the discussion. Thanks, Hec.
Because they registered? Connie, did you take a look at that Clay Shirky article I posted? I had you in mind in terms of people who protest whenever the suggestion is made that this is not a pure democracy.
ita's number about activation is a more significant number than registered. Yes, I believe those people matter.
No, I didn't read that article. If Hec's summary re: what defines core is true, and if the people who meet that criteria here are endowed somehow with a higher right to decision making, then I am deeply troubled. I hope that theory is utterly irrelevant in regards to the b.org.
I'm very happy with dropping the "who is core and does it matter?" issue. But I think the issue is the elephant in the room in regards to "what is this board and where is it going."
But Hec includes people who are here in Bureaucracy - > and this thread is not only open to everyone, isn't it one of those that will show up if you hit "read new" whether or not you subscribe?
