I opened a similar thread in the Mods forum asking Azkar Uncle what would become of GS in the future.
Personally, I think democracy sucks. Not just for GS, but for anything. Voting is impractical, people are always suspicious of the results, it creates factions, and you run the risk of having someone not fit for the job as leader.
I think it should be passed down. Azkar uncle or ehsan uncle should discuss and decide upon whom to hand over the lead to. This way it will be certain that whoever is elected is responsible, reliable, and truly cares for the benefit of GS and its guppies (as opposed to some popularity contest).
as far as operational lead goes i.e. GS director and admins, its a position appointed by a hanful of people. when sabah moved on then ehsan was brought in, when he moves on someone else will be brought in, but if those handful of people move on, then it appears they will have to appoint someone to be in that role.
all that I have rea so far here points that while the operational running of the site should be appointed or a mix, so far it oes not appear we have much support for GS members electing replacements for azkar or muzna or myself as we become further budhay and leave to do Allah Allah
I am still intrigued by a hybrid model of mods/admins being a mix of appointed and elected. rotation based on set time limits with 50% moving on and 50% new coming in (mix of appointed and elected) to maintain continuity and experience while bringing in new ideas and new energy.
i agree…I dont like the idea of having members voting…they’ll end up voting for their friends and not necessarily for the person that is the best candidate.
and how do you think hypothetically speaking, mods recommending their own friends for moderatorship (and it being one major criteria), to the director actually any different than that :)? Just a thought.
PS: and I am not for the democracy in GS as I already mentioned by the way.
and how do you think hypothetically speaking, mods recommending their own friends for moderatorship (and it being one major criteria), to the director actually any different than that :)? Just a thought.
PS: and I am not for the democracy in GS as I already mentioned by the way.
there is a big difference b/w recommending someone for modship and actually having the people vote for them. the reason is obvious.
Why 50-50? Why not just decide on what's the best way to ensure that we have reasonable/responsible people in charge rather than do half and half?
because each option has its pros and cons
running both may allow us the benefits of both and they may balance each others weakness out
I also noted to have a staggered term limit so half of the people from each group retire at one time.
what u will see will be four diff components of the team
That should create a more diverse group in thought and style and age location gender etc etc
Why? Is not someone recommending his/her friends there kind of giving a Vote? I personally do not see any difference.
You are saying that a group of people will be biased by bringing their friends but one particular person will be fair in doing the same thing. :)?
AQ a recommendation is exactly what it is ...a recommendation. In the end the ultimate decision is made by the ADMIN. Regardless of how many recommendations people have made....the ADMIN will decide for himself who is best fit for such a position.
Voting however....the MEMBERS pick who is best fit for the position. The ADMINS have no say in the matter.
anyway, thanks for the feedback.. I was just trying to say something that no one seems to see as issue. my bad :)
i saw it...is the parenthesis part based on your opinion of is it a fact?
just curious...
if you were an owner for a company and you asked your colleague/partner about two individuals and your colleague recommended one person and didnt think the other person was qualified enough to tackle the job or perhaps wouldnt work well with the others (cause of course that matters as well) who would you go with?
because each option has its pros and cons
running both may allow us the benefits of both and they may balance each others weakness out
I also noted to have a staggered term limit so half of the people from each group retire at one time.
what u will see will be four diff components of the team
**
That should create a more diverse group in thought and style and age location gender etc etc**
hmm... these are golden words, its very simple formula, if you are owner of a company, you hire different set of people, it simply boost efficiency due to competition factor!
it could be a fact... and why it is a fact is something that I am not going to share here.. but I was talking about what you think if "hypothetically" it is true :-)
i saw it...is the parenthesis part based on your opinion of is it a fact?
just curious...
if you were an owner for a company and you asked your colleague/partner about two individuals and your colleague recommended one person and didnt think the other person was qualified enough to tackle the job or perhaps wouldnt work well with the others (cause of course that matters as well) who would you go with?
So the decision is effectively made by the person making the recommendation?
I opened a similar thread in the Mods forum asking Azkar Uncle what would become of GS in the future.
Personally, I think democracy sucks. Not just for GS, but for anything. Voting is impractical, people are always suspicious of the results, it creates factions, and you run the risk of having someone not fit for the job as leader.
I think it should be passed down. Azkar uncle or ehsan uncle should discuss and decide upon whom to hand over the lead to. This way it will be certain that whoever is elected is responsible, reliable, and truly cares for the benefit of GS and its guppies (as opposed to some popularity contest).
Some people need to understand that it is not because someone is friends with a Mod that they are appointed Mods... it is instead the fact that Mods tend to 'be friends' with people that are good/mature posters. If a person obeys the rules and is a positive aspect of a forum, then the Mod is typically at good terms with that person. So you can't say that they are appointing people just because they are friends with them. They happen to be friends because of the same reason that they are being appointed.
This whole theory has been disproven several times with Mods that have been appointed that have not been friends of previous Mods.
And I'd just like to re-state what I said earlier because I don't think it can be stressed enough: allowing the people to vote for Mods is a horrible idea and will lead to many problems (as listed in my previous post).