[Foundation-l] New list admin: Ral315

[Michael Snow]

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>   
>> I asked because when something like this is brought up so quickly, the 
>> very natural inference is that it is the real motivation for the 
>> challenge, not the reason initially stated as a pretense. I observe that 
>> neither of the existing list admins, and Austin especially, is noted for 
>> being an especially high-volume poster to the list.
>>
>> And on a mailing list where people regularly complain about the volume 
>> of posts detracting from the discussion, it seems rather misplaced to 
>> consider that kind of activity the primary criterion for those who might 
>> help moderate. There are enough concerns about "editcountitis" in the 
>> community, let's not import it from wikis to mailing lists.
>>     
> Michael, there's questionable merit to the complaints that the volume of 
> posts detract from the discussion, and inevitably the people making 
> those complaints are always on the top posters for the month list. 
>   
Sorry, but this is simply not true, regardless of the merit of the 
complaints (enough different people complain that I think we should at 
least listen, although I'm not sure how much weight to give such 
complaints). From a thread a few months ago where the issue was raised:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039442.html 
(Mathias Damour)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039506.html 
(Lars Aronsson)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039509.html 
(Dmcdevit)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039531.html 
(Anders Wegge Jakobsen, agreeing with Lars)

These are all from people who post no more than occasionally (Lars is 
the most active, but I doubt he's ever been near the top of the list for 
a month). Nevertheless, they are regular readers and all people whose 
opinions I would value, even if I might not always agree with them.
> Whether someone posts a lot should absolutely NOT be a disqualification 
> for their consideration as a list admin
Who said it should be a disqualification? I merely suggested that given 
the complaints, it might not be the best qualification.
> Let me also just say that while my first response to Majorly and Jon's 
> response was "Holy shit, that's out of line", I think the chair of the 
> board's involvement in making accusations and imputing motives against 
> them, as well as suggesting (in not so many words) that people post less 
> to this list, is even more out of line.
>   
I'm not personally suggesting people post less to this list, simply 
reminding us about the longstanding concerns. Sorry for not making that 
more clear, and I didn't single anyone out as posting excessively. I 
would like to think that it's okay to take the views of others into 
consideration.

I don't understand how, though, if something is seriously out of line, 
being chair of the board should disqualify me from saying that it is out 
of line. My comments on this subject have been purely my own in any 
case, not representing the board or the foundation, should anyone be 
wondering.

--Michael Snow