Re: A GS democracy?
You missed the point. I meant a user advisory group, not user group baazi.
sorry... I am really tunn now, cuz very very tired, didn't take any rest, I guess I must go sleep, will reply afterward,
and please feel free to edit or delete my post!
Re: A GS democracy?
The issue of managing the site (admins/mods) is actually the easiest, by comparison. Whoever is the owner/paymaster of the site, will select operational leadership (Admins) and they will, in turn, get mods to manage different functions. When mods/Admins get de-interested or de-motivated or inactive, they move on and are let go, and newer people take their place.
I will nto address the financial sustainability factor because that is one thing we are all in agreement on :)
so what we are coming to is that, overall site leadership appoints an operating leaders who then execute. good.
Now, what this also necessitates is the ongoing direct involvement of the site leadership with the site. how would Azkar know hwo can be a good GS director if he is not around? based on recommendation of a retiring director alone? I am not saying I disagree but I am trying to investigate this more thoroughly..the fine print shall we say.
Re: A GS democracy?
[QUOTE]
now, additional point, how would a user advisory group work here?
[/QUOTE]
it should be interactive...so far "Chat" is the only interactive channel available.
ps. why is this thread not sticky in each n every forum?
Re: A GS democracy?
AQ- The role of an advisory group to give advise, now if that advise is taken or not for financial, technical, bandwidth reasons, thats that. I do think that in such an advisory group and site leadership a better communication should be there which was simply not there in alldost case, going back to limited personal bandwidth issues.
I have served on a few advisory boards, for my uni presidents advisory council and then on school of business dean's alumni advisory council, some of the recommendations were accepted and some were not. but communication was there.
I concur and I still feel honoured to be part of that advisory group. When I said ridiculed, I did not mean along those lines that advices were not taken or given worth.. I know many advices were taken and implemented too...
Who ridiculed it, how was it done, etc. is a different story and not the topic of this thread, so, I would rather not discuss it - just that if some outsider undermine such things is one thing but it's totally a different ball game when people given status quo do it... Anyway, it's done with .. I do not regret for doing it but as I said it was an honour for me to do it ... I am thankful to GS for considering me for that -whatever it was.. We learn from all such things anyway.
Re: A GS democracy?
it should be interactive...so far "Chat" is the only interactive channel available.
ps. why is this thread not sticky in each n every forum?
to admit my technical lack of knowledge , I dont even know if that is an option :)
Re: A GS democracy?
to admit my technical lack of knowledge , I dont even know if that is an option :)
lol. just make a section GS Hotline in chat.
-drop messages over there
- or if they like to have discussion with admin-mod, then they can take appointment and have it over there :)
ps. it could be designed...dont worry its not impossible :)
Re: A GS democracy?
GS kachehri
Re: A GS democracy?
lol. ya sure but u have to explain it to every one that whether is it khichree or kachehri (court) 
it will always gonna remind me of sheikh chilee khichree lateefa
Re: A GS democracy?
Now, what this also necessitates is the ongoing direct involvement of the site leadership with the site. how would Azkar know hwo can be a good GS director if he is not around? based on recommendation of a retiring director alone? I am not saying I disagree but I am trying to investigate this more thoroughly..the fine print shall we say.
Azkar, or whoever the owner/CEO is, doesn't have to observe everything first hand. He has friends and confidants in place who keep monitoring the site and provide feedback as to what is working and what is not working. Communication is the key. You seek input, you get input. Some good quality. Some not. Filter it down, and you get your answer. A lot of judgement is involved, of course.
Re: A GS democracy?
Azkar, or whoever the owner/CEO is, doesn't have to observe everything first hand. He has friends and confidants in place who keep monitoring the site and provide feedback as to what is working and what is not working. Communication is the key. You seek input, you get input. Some good quality. Some not. Filter it down, and you get your answer. A lot of judgement is involved, of course.
I think we agree, In my statement direct involvement did not mean personal observation, but that the person has to be engaged whether it is through personal interactions and observations or if it is through proxies/friends/confidants feedback. Obviously how well the proxies have their fingers on the pulse of the site can vary based on the people.
Re: A GS democracy?
Azkar, or whoever the owner/CEO is, doesn't have to observe everything first hand. **He has friends **and confidants in place who keep monitoring the site and provide feedback as to what is working and what is not working. Communication is the key. You seek input, you get input. Some good quality. Some not. Filter it down, and you get your answer. A lot of judgement is involved, of course.
When you own a site or are a director or CEO, you need to understand that in business there is no such thing called 'friends'... plus believing friends are most horrible thing! Inputs from ‘friends’ may not replicate the real situations, being CEO; one should ‘observe’ both sides, unfortunately it was not done due to extra believing in friends and it is the root cause of all misshapes.
CEO believed in his friend and did not listen to his foes, (foes? Right!!!)! ‘Friends‘should have been realistic and should have seen read the middle lines, now who are foes here? Those who differ from the thought? and were put them aside because they don’t agree to you? and then you makes a report to CEO ‘sab acha hay Azkar ji, bas kuch gunday thay wo ban hogai’ ...
Re: A GS democracy?
Ata, you are way too cynical even for your own good. 'Enuf said. :)
Re: A GS democracy?
Ata, you are way too cynical even for your own good. 'Enuf said. :)
Fine with me, its ok but this is your own conclusion and I don't have to agree with you because I know myself better than what you concluded, but don't worry it will not make you my foe!
ps: I was talking about similar kind of conclusion about personalities at GS, just because you are an admin (or were) ... you are right! and your conclusion is final! and rest goes to rest!
ps2: I may prove you wrong when I am in SF :-) (soon :-p)
Re: A GS democracy?
arshad good points btw mod duties and rules, and roles and responsibilities etc will be placed
rules is a whole diff story, as they say you can create something pretty idiot proof and then a ebtter idiot comes around :) thats where ppl then have to extrapolate and all, and thats what gets them in hot water.
so far what I am reading is that aside from some weaknesses and errors, the format we have generally works well, i.e. strong leadership team providing consistency picking operational team which they feel can align operationalize the strategy.
admittedly we have not done the best job at it, especially over last few years, which will change, and this is part of it.
now, additional point, how would a user advisory group work here?
I think it would be beneficial to have an advisory group. I did mention previously in a thread in feedback that there should be a focus group and changes should be implemented only after input from the focus group.
Re: A GS democracy?
Clarity of the purpose, a clear perception of the objective, paves the way for a best possible “path”. Democracy is not the objective in itself, it’s a path. Be clear about what do you want to achieve, and then ask for a debate.
If understood correctly, I may come back with detailed viewpoint.
Re: A GS democracy?
Intelliphant, I wish I could be more clear. The objective is clear, discussing the options for optimal long term operational and mgmt structure for this site ..or its evolved state (holograms anyone)
It appears that most people participating either did understand or understand enough to participate in a discussion.
Re: A GS democracy?
leaders are designers, and designers innovate..we are saying the same thing. if yoiu dont innovate then what you have will become irrelevent because someone else will innovate. Inhabitants of status quo dont like revolutionary change :)
here are my views
Democracy model doesn't work for GS as the community is more diverse
if you are popular in GS all guppies vote for you, but capability doesn't come with popularity
you people are here from starting, so you know all the issues/problems you faced
so ask the guppies who want to be mod, why they are interested in modship
and you filter out best applicants here and to the remaining applicants ask questions about how they can handle the issues/problems which you have faced during your tenture
Distribute the mod duties as GS in 24/7 online, and have guppies across the globe so pick mods for different time zones and backups when some one is not available, get the periodic feedback from guppies about the mods and evaluate them whoever performs better make them admins
initally its little head ache for you guys
Re: A GS democracy?
Intelliphant, I wish I could be more clear. The objective is clear, discussing the options for optimal long term operational and mgmt structure for this site ..or its evolved state (holograms anyone)
It appears that most people participating either did understand or understand enough to participate in a discussion.
It appears that most people participating either did understand or understand enough to participate in a discussion.
X2, Participation does not reflect your capability to participate intellectually for the betterment, there are too many factors that contribute to the craving for writing on the pages of a forum like this. We all conceive the message differently, most of the time our arguments draw strength from the strength of our experience, our relation with the poster, matter in discussion or just one word that can initiate one logically approvable rationale. So participation is not a substantiation of ambiguity of the message or otherwise. Please don’t infer that I am trying to say that you were not crystal in the assertiveness of the language you used.
Democracy is not just a system but an attitude, root cause and the soul for the existence of this forum provides an unclouded token that those who own or manage this forum are pretty democratic in their belief and in their attitude. However an obverse side of self catharsis also plays its part in forming and marinating this flexible attitude.
Operational and management structure are two entirely different things, democracy is framework of extracting the nectar through dialogue, it would be most effective for both the structures but dialogue among who is the point to ponder.
Asking forum participants to discuss about the decisions pertaining to the management of the site, like the financial viability, expansion and support is a recipe of huge inconvenience. The volume of suggestions would create gravity of black hole, out of which nothing practical would emerge. However, I am not saying there is no need for democracy at this level, owner should, if not already, have a board of directors that can decide these matters. Not to mention that those who decide here are the stakeholder in the financial viability.
As to the question of operational management of forum is concerned, it will be a good idea to invite participants to voice their concern about;
1)rules and regulations about participation
2)election/selection of moderators
3)Powers and authority of the moderators
4)basic qualification to become a moderator
5)checks and balances against the bias of moderators
Two things are most important in the above list, election or selection of the moderators, and checks and balances. The system of moderation rely on the intellect of human beings, looking at the forum, its participants and conflicting point of view, it should not be either election or selection alone. The best scenario would be to make it “hybrid” system part selection, part election. Top management, owner, board of directors, can filter the nominees based on the qualification for which participants were invited to make rules. Among the nominees a method of election can serve the purpose of getting feeling of participation in decision making among the participants.
A moderator should serve for certain period of time with track record of minimal bias and good conduct. A panel to oversee the conduct of moderators can be constructed.
I will come back to conclude my thoughts, if so far I made any sense.
Re: A GS democracy?
The best scenario would be to make it “hybrid” system part selection, part election. Top management, owner, board of directors, can filter the nominees based on the qualification for which participants were invited to make rules. Among the nominees a method of election can serve the purpose of getting feeling of participation in decision making among the participants.
A moderator should serve for certain period of time with track record of minimal bias and good conduct. A panel to oversee the conduct of moderators can be constructed. I will come back to conclude my thoughts, if so far I made any sense.
Thank you, your optimal solution is part of the pattern that is seming to emerge from this discussion.
I have intentionally not gone into some other areas, but they will be seperate topics that will come up in some time.
Re: A GS democracy?
Make sure you take care of the financial issue, who will spend and who will collect. Everything else is just volunteer work by volunteers and they other than suggesting how to maximize revenue should not be *asking *money related questions. :D