[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
rules regarding Administrative changes
[ intended for posting ]
We've seen a number of administrative changes over what types
of articles can or cannot be accepted, however, one question
I've asked remains unanswered - what constitutes "consensus"?
So, I'd like to suggest that some form of codified rules be
set up specifically to handle what sort of posts can be banned,
etc. It has often been claimed that SRH is a democratic forum,
but without some sort of verifiable process for determining
change, I fail to see how this "democracy" can be safeguarded.
Here is what I propose - before a change is implemented, some
form of open voting must take place, and there must be a sufficient
period when any questions/clarifications can be brought up and
_answered_. So far, I've noticed that questions raised regarding
banning certain words or making this forum English-only have gone
totally unanswered, that in itself should be grounds for not
implementing an administrative change.
Now, the logicians will naturally point out there's a catch-22
here, since there are no rules for ratifying this change. I'll
leave that open, but I suggest that the discussion on this topic
should be on the newsgroup itself, rather than behind closed doors,
and that some form of a straw poll be taken.
-Vivek
Follow-Ups:
