governance-issues: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by Tantek)
Line 1: Line 1:
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
<div class="usermessage">
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
'''This page is largely out of date, and most of the issues have been addressed with the creation of the [[admins]] page and related pages (e.g. [[admin-faq]]).'''
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
'''[[to-do]]: [[admins]] should process this page for additional specific outstanding issues, distill them accordingly, archive them by year, and document necessary [[admin-faq|FAQs]] accordingly.'''
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
[[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 00:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
</div>
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Issue Summary 2007-02-28 ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
=== Editor ===
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
[http://www.opendarwin.org/~drernie/ Ernest Prabhakar]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
=== Contributors ===
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*[[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Joe Andrieu
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Phae
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Ryan Cannon
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Colin Barrett
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* ... Please add yourself.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Preamble ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
Over the last year (2007), a few people (AndyMabbett, JoeAndrieu, ErnestPrabhakar, JamesCraig, [[User:ManuSporny|ManuSporny]]) have raised issues about how the Microformats wiki, mailing list, and community are governed. This page is here to discuss ideas for documenting, formalizing, and/or improving our collective governance.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Abstract ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
Governance has [http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/glossary.html been defined] as "the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of public concern."  In the context of Microformats, it covers:
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Rules (both written and unwritten) expected of community members
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Formal process for change requests for known format problems (i.e. abbr-design-pattern) by voting, with leeway for admin vetoes.  
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Who the various Admins are
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* What powers Admins have
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Rules for how/when Admins can/should use those powers
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* How to questioning/appealing a decision by an Admin
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* How to become an Admin
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* How to question/change any of these
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
While not all of these need to be explicitly spelled out, a healthy community our size requires a broad shared understanding of these facts -- as well as acceptance of them as "legitimate."
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Who Are Admins ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* 2007-01-04 raised by [[User:DrErnie|DrErnie]] on [[microformats-issues]], before this page existed, and moved from there
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*# ''As discussed in [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-January/008011.html], there exist various concerns about the lack of clarity regarding governance of the list, wiki, and the specifications themselves. While agree that there does need to be some form of strong leadership to preserve the integrity of the community, I agree with [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-January/008022.html Colin Barrett] when he said:''
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
:::"I think there should be bit more visible superstructure around just who is in this "cabal". It seems to me like the Editors/Authors of the various specs form the majority it of it, but perhaps that should be made a bit more apparent, and the "powers" of an editor (essentially, the ability to veto changes to the wiki, it seems) outlined a bit and some information about how to become an editor (AFIACT, make numerous, quality edits to the Wiki that the other editors approve of)."
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
:An entry has been added to the FAQ regarding [http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Q:_Who_controls_microformats.3F Who controls microformats?].[[User:DrErnie|Dr. Ernie]] 08:48, 2 Feb 2007 (PST)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Mailing List Unmoderation Discussion ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
Discussion from [[mailing-list-unmoderation]].
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* I'm glad to see this issue getting traction. However, I'm curious why Ernie's standing in the community is relevant to the issue of unmoderating Andy. Tantek, could you explain why that has been presented as an integral part of this decision making process?  Clearly, personal clout always shapes one's ability to influence the community; however, I doubt it should be officially incorporated in these "proceedings". Shouldn't every member of the community have an equal hearing under whatever governance procedures we use? [[User:JoeAndrieu|JoeAndrieu]] 09:38, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
:[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-March/009066.html Tantek also said]: "''Ernie, as someone who has made overwhelmingly positive contributions to the microformats community, IMHO the occasional OT post is reasonable'".
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* I believe the statement was added to give context to the appealing member of the community. i.e. Ernie is a long standing, good contributor, as opposed to someone new who has no experience with this particular community or someone who has had little or no interaction with the community until now, and also negates it being a personal statement (rather he is interested in community as a whole, instead of being a friend of the Andy and having a personal goal, for example). Basically, he is a person with a certain amount of credibility and trustworthiness. [[User:Phae|Phae]] 10:25, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Agreed, Phae, Ernie is such a person and that is Tantek's point. But should one need to be a "friend of the court" to bring an action?  That practice reinforces a culture of privilege that has historically proven antithetical to transparency and equality, both characteristics of good governance, IMO. It is great to see the powers-that-be responding to Ernie's request. It is also a bit frustrating that only those deemed meritorious by the peerage can call forth due process and that Andy's own efforts to speak on his behalf--referencing my previous request to do the same--were summarily dismissed by Tantek because they were "adversarial."  Any robust governance should, IMO, work independent of privilege and be capable of addressing adversarial situations without arbitrary limits on the speech of those whose liberties are under challenge.--[[User:JoeAndrieu|JoeAndrieu]] 14:18, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** Point taken and appreciated, but this is the first incident to come to this kind of a situation where someone else has felt the need to step in, and just happened to also involve someone that is felt to be a member of good standing. I'd like to hope that if another member of the community had felt a similar way and had chosen to bring it up, that it would also have been dealt with in this open manner (and I'm sure this incident will be brought up in the future). Hopefully this incident will be a good test case to better structure future interactions with administration. I can't personally comment on Andy's own appeals. [[User:Phae|Phae]] 14:45, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
**Agreed. The first efforts to work through a process like this are bound to be less than ideal. However, I'd like to get on the record two main points that appear problematic.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
# [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-February/008490.html my previous request to do the same] was not, in fact, dealt with in this open manner. Rather it decayed into a defensive debate about governance generally, leaving poor Andy stuck in moderated censure. Perhaps I'm not the most diplomatic sort, but the issue on the table is not about me. It is about Andy's continuing moderation.  
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
# The [[mailing-list-unmoderation|unmoderation wiki page]] for Andy is effectively a public hearing on Andy's standing and privileges in the community, especially with [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-March/009066.html Tantek's request] that no replies be sent to the email list on the topic. I find it particularly disturbing that Andy's efforts to contribute to that hearing have been [http://microformats.org/wiki?title=mailing-list-unmoderation&diff=14419&oldid=14416 repeatedly] [http://microformats.org/wiki?title=mailing-list-unmoderation&diff=14456&oldid=14454 dismissed] by Tantek (see the [http://microformats.org/wiki?title=mailing-list-unmoderation&action=history history] for a complete list). While It probably wasn't the best form for Andy to edit my comment directly, he should, IMO, have a way to voice his opinion on the matter. He's been threatened with a ban if he does so on the mailing list. Is there another venue that is more appropriate than the wiki page taking input and votes on his unmoderation?--[[User:JoeAndrieu|JoeAndrieu]] 20:19, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Shouldn't this point be moot? According to the terms of the moderation, it will be lifted "if he successfully sends only topical / positive / improving email to the lists for one week." Once the week passed, this moderation ought to have been lifted automatically, and should not require a vote, right? --[[User:RCanine|Ryan Cannon]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** At least one message was rejected during that first week, thus moderation was left as is, with the attention of the admins etc. focused on other higher priority matters. Given the higher quality of messages *with* moderation (as compared to before), some have made the statement that moderation is "working" and thus should be kept. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 08:58, 22 Mar 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* I dislike moderation because I find it causes me to be hesitant with my own contributions in some cases. Since I don't often know how long a message has been queued its hard for me to judge if my reply would be helpful, or if the moderated poster has already moved along with the rest of the discussion so I err on the side of moving onto something else. doesn't hurt me, but I feel sometimes it might not help with the overall discussions depth or conclusion. . Thus, I think the burden should be heavy to continue moderation for any length of time without a decision to unmoderate or outright ban. [[User:ChrisCasciano|ChrisCasciano]] 11:40, 23 Mar 2007 (ET)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Examples ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
''Note: This is not to take a position on whether or not any of these decisions were appropriate or inappropriate. Rather, the existence of these events demonstrates the need to document why and how such decisions were -- or should be -- made and/or appealed.''
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Labelling microformats schema discussions as [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-March/003551.html off-topic]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** Already covered by the [[microformats]] principles.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Issue rejection [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-February/008864.html governance]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Negative, PoV and derogatory edit summary content such as "[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=hcard-authoring&diff=13621&oldid=12276#Add_To_Address_Book_Links smelled of excessive political correctness worrying]" and "[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=to-do&curid=1110&diff=13989&oldid=13988&rcid=23801 removed non-productive comment]".
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** Removal of negative content from the wiki is not a negative. The Admins use their best judgment.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*[[rejected-formats#Pavatar|listing of items as "rejected"]] when [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-January/008271.html requests for evidence of said rejection] reveal none.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** Not every email can be answered, nor should anyone expect them to be. In this case the rejection is in the mailing list archives.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Despite an assurance that "all of the admins will be apropriately (sic) listed on the wiki page [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-February/008526.html]", the [http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Q:_Who_controls_microformats.3F list given in FAQ] is prefaced with the qualifier "including".
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** Reference for assurance?  No such assurance should ever have been given.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
* Removal of disputed edits / removal of negative content from the wiki
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
**[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=mailing-list-unmoderation&diff=next&oldid=14416 mailing-list-unmoderation (16:12, 19 Mar 2007)]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
**[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=governance&curid=3084&diff=0&oldid=14390&rcid=24255 governance (12:50, 19 Mar 2007)]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
** [http://microformats.org/wiki?title=governance-issues&diff=14401&oldid=14396 governance-issues (14:55, 19 Mar 2007)]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
**[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=mailing-lists&curid=1297&diff=14391&oldid=14389&rcid=24254 mailing-lists (12:42, 19 Mar 2007)]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Proposal ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
# Create a publicly-visible ''microformats-admin'' mailing list, for easily identifying and contacting all admins
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
# Document a forum/mechanism/process where individuals concerned about admin actions can legitimately raise their concerns, to ensure substantive issues are addressed
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
# Maintain a [[governance]] page that captures and describes
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
## the identity of current Admins
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
## how to contact them
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
## the process for becoming an Admin
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
## the specific kinds of behavior warranting Admin intervention
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
## how/when suspended/moderated individuals can return to "good standing"
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
## how to appeal an Admin decision/action
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
== Petition ==
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
 
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
We acknowledge that the microformats list and wiki is not a democracy, and that one of the key goals of microformats is to have as little process and structure as possible. However, at the same time we believe that the "dictatorship" needs to not merely ''be'', but ''be seen as'' "benevolent."  This includes some minimal level of transparency and due process to ensure that there are legitimate ways for ordinary members to speak out if they feel (rightly or wrongly) that a particular administrative action was unwise or unfair. Whether that is similar to the '''[[#Proposal]]''' above, or a counter-proposal by the ''admin'' team, we believe that something is necessary.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
:''Please add your vote here''
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 Ernest Prabhakar
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 Joe Andrieu
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 James Craig
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 Steve Robillard
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 Chris Messina
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:ManuSporny|ManuSporny]] 08:59, 3 Aug 2007 (PDT)
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 Ben Buchanan
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:EatYourGreens|Jim O'Donnell]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:Csarven|Sarven Capadisli]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:TobyInk|TobyInk]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:JohnAllsopp|John Allsopp]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:TomMorris|Tom Morris]] - I do not think the current admins are doing a bad job, but would appreciate greater transparency by providing clear reasons for all administrative actions. I also think that unless group administration is transparent, Bad Things Can Happen.
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:JeffMcNeill|Jeff McNeill]]
MAKE GOD DO WHAT I WANT.MAKE ALLAH DO WHAT I WANT.PUT I TO HEAVEN GOD.PUT I TO HEAVEN ALLAH.
*+1 [[User:RobManson|Rob Manson]]
*+0 [[User:EdwardOConnor|Edward O'Connor]] - I think the existing Microformats governance is benevolent, transparent, and follows due process. Which is to say that, while I agree with the principles described in this petition, I believe the status quo satisfies those same principles.
*+1 [[User:JesseRodgers|Jesse Rodgers]] - Not sure if status quo is a good idea, some structure might help... certainly worth a serious discussion.
 
== Resources ==
 
* [http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html Clay Shirky] on a group as its own worst enemy
* [http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600005 Cory Doctorow] on Internet Jerks

Revision as of 04:51, 7 April 2013

This page is largely out of date, and most of the issues have been addressed with the creation of the admins page and related pages (e.g. admin-faq).

to-do: admins should process this page for additional specific outstanding issues, distill them accordingly, archive them by year, and document necessary FAQs accordingly.

Tantek 00:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue Summary 2007-02-28

Editor

Ernest Prabhakar

Contributors

  • Andy Mabbett
  • Joe Andrieu
  • Phae
  • Ryan Cannon
  • Colin Barrett
  • ... Please add yourself.

Preamble

Over the last year (2007), a few people (AndyMabbett, JoeAndrieu, ErnestPrabhakar, JamesCraig, ManuSporny) have raised issues about how the Microformats wiki, mailing list, and community are governed. This page is here to discuss ideas for documenting, formalizing, and/or improving our collective governance.

Abstract

Governance has been defined as "the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of public concern." In the context of Microformats, it covers:

  • Rules (both written and unwritten) expected of community members
  • Formal process for change requests for known format problems (i.e. abbr-design-pattern) by voting, with leeway for admin vetoes.
  • Who the various Admins are
  • What powers Admins have
  • Rules for how/when Admins can/should use those powers
  • How to questioning/appealing a decision by an Admin
  • How to become an Admin
  • How to question/change any of these

While not all of these need to be explicitly spelled out, a healthy community our size requires a broad shared understanding of these facts -- as well as acceptance of them as "legitimate."

Who Are Admins

  • 2007-01-04 raised by DrErnie on microformats-issues, before this page existed, and moved from there
    1. As discussed in [1], there exist various concerns about the lack of clarity regarding governance of the list, wiki, and the specifications themselves. While agree that there does need to be some form of strong leadership to preserve the integrity of the community, I agree with Colin Barrett when he said:
"I think there should be bit more visible superstructure around just who is in this "cabal". It seems to me like the Editors/Authors of the various specs form the majority it of it, but perhaps that should be made a bit more apparent, and the "powers" of an editor (essentially, the ability to veto changes to the wiki, it seems) outlined a bit and some information about how to become an editor (AFIACT, make numerous, quality edits to the Wiki that the other editors approve of)."
An entry has been added to the FAQ regarding Who controls microformats?.Dr. Ernie 08:48, 2 Feb 2007 (PST)

Mailing List Unmoderation Discussion

Discussion from mailing-list-unmoderation.

  • I'm glad to see this issue getting traction. However, I'm curious why Ernie's standing in the community is relevant to the issue of unmoderating Andy. Tantek, could you explain why that has been presented as an integral part of this decision making process? Clearly, personal clout always shapes one's ability to influence the community; however, I doubt it should be officially incorporated in these "proceedings". Shouldn't every member of the community have an equal hearing under whatever governance procedures we use? JoeAndrieu 09:38, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
Tantek also said: "Ernie, as someone who has made overwhelmingly positive contributions to the microformats community, IMHO the occasional OT post is reasonable'".
  • I believe the statement was added to give context to the appealing member of the community. i.e. Ernie is a long standing, good contributor, as opposed to someone new who has no experience with this particular community or someone who has had little or no interaction with the community until now, and also negates it being a personal statement (rather he is interested in community as a whole, instead of being a friend of the Andy and having a personal goal, for example). Basically, he is a person with a certain amount of credibility and trustworthiness. Phae 10:25, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
  • Agreed, Phae, Ernie is such a person and that is Tantek's point. But should one need to be a "friend of the court" to bring an action? That practice reinforces a culture of privilege that has historically proven antithetical to transparency and equality, both characteristics of good governance, IMO. It is great to see the powers-that-be responding to Ernie's request. It is also a bit frustrating that only those deemed meritorious by the peerage can call forth due process and that Andy's own efforts to speak on his behalf--referencing my previous request to do the same--were summarily dismissed by Tantek because they were "adversarial." Any robust governance should, IMO, work independent of privilege and be capable of addressing adversarial situations without arbitrary limits on the speech of those whose liberties are under challenge.--JoeAndrieu 14:18, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
    • Point taken and appreciated, but this is the first incident to come to this kind of a situation where someone else has felt the need to step in, and just happened to also involve someone that is felt to be a member of good standing. I'd like to hope that if another member of the community had felt a similar way and had chosen to bring it up, that it would also have been dealt with in this open manner (and I'm sure this incident will be brought up in the future). Hopefully this incident will be a good test case to better structure future interactions with administration. I can't personally comment on Andy's own appeals. Phae 14:45, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
    • Agreed. The first efforts to work through a process like this are bound to be less than ideal. However, I'd like to get on the record two main points that appear problematic.
  1. my previous request to do the same was not, in fact, dealt with in this open manner. Rather it decayed into a defensive debate about governance generally, leaving poor Andy stuck in moderated censure. Perhaps I'm not the most diplomatic sort, but the issue on the table is not about me. It is about Andy's continuing moderation.
  2. The unmoderation wiki page for Andy is effectively a public hearing on Andy's standing and privileges in the community, especially with Tantek's request that no replies be sent to the email list on the topic. I find it particularly disturbing that Andy's efforts to contribute to that hearing have been repeatedly dismissed by Tantek (see the history for a complete list). While It probably wasn't the best form for Andy to edit my comment directly, he should, IMO, have a way to voice his opinion on the matter. He's been threatened with a ban if he does so on the mailing list. Is there another venue that is more appropriate than the wiki page taking input and votes on his unmoderation?--JoeAndrieu 20:19, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
  • Shouldn't this point be moot? According to the terms of the moderation, it will be lifted "if he successfully sends only topical / positive / improving email to the lists for one week." Once the week passed, this moderation ought to have been lifted automatically, and should not require a vote, right? --Ryan Cannon
    • At least one message was rejected during that first week, thus moderation was left as is, with the attention of the admins etc. focused on other higher priority matters. Given the higher quality of messages *with* moderation (as compared to before), some have made the statement that moderation is "working" and thus should be kept. Tantek 08:58, 22 Mar 2007 (PDT)
  • I dislike moderation because I find it causes me to be hesitant with my own contributions in some cases. Since I don't often know how long a message has been queued its hard for me to judge if my reply would be helpful, or if the moderated poster has already moved along with the rest of the discussion so I err on the side of moving onto something else. doesn't hurt me, but I feel sometimes it might not help with the overall discussions depth or conclusion. . Thus, I think the burden should be heavy to continue moderation for any length of time without a decision to unmoderate or outright ban. ChrisCasciano 11:40, 23 Mar 2007 (ET)

Examples

Note: This is not to take a position on whether or not any of these decisions were appropriate or inappropriate. Rather, the existence of these events demonstrates the need to document why and how such decisions were -- or should be -- made and/or appealed.

Proposal

  1. Create a publicly-visible microformats-admin mailing list, for easily identifying and contacting all admins
  2. Document a forum/mechanism/process where individuals concerned about admin actions can legitimately raise their concerns, to ensure substantive issues are addressed
  3. Maintain a governance page that captures and describes
    1. the identity of current Admins
    2. how to contact them
    3. the process for becoming an Admin
    4. the specific kinds of behavior warranting Admin intervention
    5. how/when suspended/moderated individuals can return to "good standing"
    6. how to appeal an Admin decision/action

Petition

We acknowledge that the microformats list and wiki is not a democracy, and that one of the key goals of microformats is to have as little process and structure as possible. However, at the same time we believe that the "dictatorship" needs to not merely be, but be seen as "benevolent." This includes some minimal level of transparency and due process to ensure that there are legitimate ways for ordinary members to speak out if they feel (rightly or wrongly) that a particular administrative action was unwise or unfair. Whether that is similar to the #Proposal above, or a counter-proposal by the admin team, we believe that something is necessary.

Please add your vote here
  • +1 Ernest Prabhakar
  • +1 Joe Andrieu
  • +1 James Craig
  • +1 Steve Robillard
  • +1 Chris Messina
  • +1 ManuSporny 08:59, 3 Aug 2007 (PDT)
  • +1 Ben Buchanan
  • +1 Jim O'Donnell
  • +1 Sarven Capadisli
  • +1 TobyInk
  • +1 John Allsopp
  • +1 Tom Morris - I do not think the current admins are doing a bad job, but would appreciate greater transparency by providing clear reasons for all administrative actions. I also think that unless group administration is transparent, Bad Things Can Happen.
  • +1 Jeff McNeill
  • +1 Rob Manson
  • +0 Edward O'Connor - I think the existing Microformats governance is benevolent, transparent, and follows due process. Which is to say that, while I agree with the principles described in this petition, I believe the status quo satisfies those same principles.
  • +1 Jesse Rodgers - Not sure if status quo is a good idea, some structure might help... certainly worth a serious discussion.

Resources