moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta


With all due respect, simple posts stating “I agree” (with sufficient quotation
to identify WHAT is being agreed with or to) and “I disagree because…” are
vital and appropriate steps toward consensus by any reasonable definition.

Little discussion on a given subject may indicate there is little opposition to
what is posted, or it may indicate few or no one else cares about the subject.
Big difference in deciding how or whether to proceed further.



On Feb 13, 2020, at 9:11 PM, JediPirx <stan@...> wrote:

I would like to suggest that the Charter Rules for this group
be added to the Wiki.

It would help educate newcomers to the group, and remind
veterans of the group, about the rules of engagement.

To assist with this suggestion, I have extracted elements
from the various emails on this topic and added them below.
This is a rough draft.



Posting Etiquette
Avoid using "I agree", "me too", "No one will use that", "That would
cause a mess", and so on

Discussions/additions/clarifications should be fact-based and add to
understanding or clarification (or forbid improvement) of someone
else's suggestion, not leading to defending one's opinions (rather
than presenting or clarifying facts,) which adds tons of chaff.
If a point of discussion is incompletely presented, i.e. advantages but
not disadvantages, it is appropriate that anyone aware of this clarify
that part of the discussion with factual information of equally valid
considerations. A “culture” of dogmatism is a culture hostile to original

Proposal for Proposing Proposals
I would instead say “How to prepare and present a #suggestion"
It seems it would be good for there to be a way to 'discuss' an
idea (the "proposal") before it actually becomes a suggestion.
As I understand it, the GroupManagersForum (GMF) is comprised
of founders/owners/administrators; i.e. CUSTOMERS.
[beta] is Administration.

As is stated at the end here, it would seem reasonable and appropriate
that ALL ideas be discussed in detail in GMF before a suggestion# is
submitted on [beta].

Which means that the suggestion process involves two steps, the
#proposal and the #suggestion.
Actually, this might be more clear if it were #topic/discussion and the #suggestion.?

Once a consensus is reached (and only then), submit a #suggestion,
referencing the proposal topic. If there's no interest in the
#proposal, it does not become a #suggestion.
I find the first sentence intellectually intimidating. What is specifically meant by
"Once a consensus is reached (and only then)? Those who might consider making
a suggestion should not be discouraged by an inappropriately complex or unclear

True “consensus” is a level of agreement following evaluation seldom achieved.
It may also be utterly unrelated to the ease or difficulty of implementation. Some
decisions appropriate to circumstances may be appropriate but unpopular.

Ideally, I would not have to moderate (or spend much time involved
with) the #proposal process. I think we all want me focused on
actually getting stuff implemented. :-)
WHO is speaking here (above)? We know ALL posts to [beta] are moderated. We
DON’T know by whom. Presumably this is delegated. Mark’s personal attention is
much better invested elsewhere.

Conversely, however, it is an inseparable and essential “part of the process” that
Mark invest whatever time necessary to understand the history and group support
“pushing” a suggestion# before deciding to toss it, implement it, or study it further.

We are notified weekly what has been changed or implemented. We aren’t told
which suggestions have been considered and rejected and/or which remain under
consideration in some form.

Some proposals are discussed in the GroupManagersForum that eventually
find their way into as a suggestion.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.