Wiki: Ecumenical Staff Recall and Removal Protocol

[""]

In the event of a request to remove staff from the Ecumenical Team, the following policy will be applied:

1. Only Ecumenical Team members may nominate another team member for recall and/or removal.
2. Prior to nomination, the situation must be brought before the Team Leaders who will decide whether or not there is cause for a poll can be started.
3. A poll will be started with two options: 1)Yes for Staying 2) Removal
4. Staff who are eligible to vote in this matter will be restricted to those who are curent members of the Ecumenical Team.
5. Any Ecumenical posters may vote if they have 600+ posts, and have demonstrated daily posting in the Ecumenical Forums over a period of 3 consequtive months. Posters who do not meet these requirements may not vote.

[""]

I have helped to create this protocol after noticing that some staff members, from other teams, are attempting to remove staff from teams that are not their own.

This protocol protects the Ecumenical Team from this.

[""]

This is the original:

In the event of a request to remove staff from the Ecumenical Team, the following policy will be applied:

In the event of a request to remove staff from the Ecumenical Team, the following policy will be applied:

1. Only Ecumenical Team members may nominate another team member for recall and/or removal.
2. Prior to nomination, the situation must be brought before the Team Leaders who will decide whether or not there is cause for a poll can be started.
3. A poll will be started with two options: 1)Yes for Staying 2) Removal
4. Non-Ecumenical Team "staff members" may not vote. Staff from other teams may not vote at any time.
5. Ecumenical posters may vote if they have 600+ posts, and have demonstrated daily posting in the Ecumenical Forums over a period of 3 consequtive months. Posters who do not meet these requirements may not vote.

I wanted to post it here, in case it's edited, so that you can see what I was suggesting, and not because I was trying to prevent editing.

[pdudgeon]

if i may offer a suggestion...i understand why this was created, but this is now a new day, and the old can safely be left behind.
let's keep this in as positive a light as we can. and to that end i have a suggestion for re-wording point number 4, changing it from this:Non-Ecumenical Team "staff members" may not vote. Staff from other teams may not vote at any time.


to this: Staff who are elligable to vote in this matter will be restricted to those who are curent members of the Ecumenical Team.

it changes the emphasis from those who are locked out to that of who is already present and eligable.:)

[chaoschristian]

I have an issue with point 1 in that it basically opens up Ecumenical team members to lobbying from the general membership to petition for recalls.

This, I believe, will cause unnecessary stress to the team, and a more elegant solution is to allow for petitions of redress to originate directly from the membership, regardless of their status.

[CaDan]

This is the original:

In the event of a request to remove staff from the Ecumenical Team, the following policy will be applied:

In the event of a request to remove staff from the Ecumenical Team, the following policy will be applied:

1. Only Ecumenical Team members may nominate another team member for recall and/or removal.
2. Prior to nomination, the situation must be brought before the Team Leaders who will decide whether or not there is cause for a poll can be started.
3. A poll will be started with two options: 1)Yes for Staying 2) Removal
4. Non-Ecumenical Team "staff members" may not vote. Staff from other teams may not vote at any time.
5. Ecumenical posters may vote if they have 600+ posts, and have demonstrated daily posting in the Ecumenical Forums over a period of 3 consequtive months. Posters who do not meet these requirements may not vote.

I wanted to post it here, in case it's edited, so that you can see what I was suggesting, and not because I was trying to prevent editing.

Looks to me like an attempt to prevent you from ever being held responsible for your actions.

Why don't we just rename this this Adiya/Sh'ma Israel job protection clause? Because that's what it is.

*prepares for self-righteous incomings*

[Melethiel]

Staff from other teams may not vote at any time.
5. Ecumenical posters may vote if they have 600+ posts, and have demonstrated daily posting in the Ecumenical Forums over a period of 3 consequtive months. Posters who do not meet these requirements may not vote.
What about staff from other teams who happen to be regular Ecumenical posters?

[pdudgeon]

Looks to me like an attempt to prevent you from ever being held responsible for your actions.

Why don't we just rename this this Adiya/Sh'ma Israel job protection clause? Because that's what it is.

*prepares for self-righteous incomings*

no, this just makes a way for an organized removal of staff if one is necessary before the next general election, and it also allows for member input. Remember, before 07/07/2007 we had no such choice, and we certainly could have used it.

[pdudgeon]

I have an issue with point 1 in that it basically opens up Ecumenical team members to lobbying from the general membership to petition for recalls.

This, I believe, will cause unnecessary stress to the team, and a more elegant solution is to allow for petitions of redress to originate directly from the membership, regardless of their status.

actually, no more stress than does the curent nomination process for new moderators. staff approval is needed for that as well, so what would be the difference?

[suzybeezy]

Staff do not just stay in one section, their violations can extend to the CR, to support threads, to appeals, to pms etc.... The recall process that covers staff misconduct as a whole is more appropriate, instead of trying to find ways to protect indiscretion and all cost of integrity.

This wiki is an attempt to skirt responsibility and accountability.

[chaoschristian]

actually, no more stress than does the curent nomination process for new moderators. staff approval is needed for that as well, so what would be the difference?

That's a bad system too.

No need to replicate it.

[tapero]

A part of this is an illegal wiki (the recall part.)

A staffer affects whole of CF, not just an area.

Teams have no say as to how a team can do recall which affects all members, regardless of what team they are on.

No way a team on CF can say only their team can do recalls as pertains to their staffers.

Any staffer desires to be unaccountable to members, should not be on staff.

This wiki is basically a desire for no accountability to all members of forums.

If it is said at some point, that such has precedence, then there is a very serious problem in foru.ms.

A staffers behavior affects all members.

Why would any team desire to make recall unavailable to all members?

Again, why would any team desire a staffer to be unaccountable.

Note, in using word team, am doing so for reasons, and am aware wiki is not teams desire but author of wiki, but due to what is occuring to be safe, saying team.

No offense meant to those on team.

[Athene]

Staff do not just stay in one section, their violations can extend to the CR, to support threads, to appeals, to pms etc.... The recall process that covers staff misconduct as a whole is more appropriate, instead of trying to find ways to protect indiscretion and all cost of integrity.

This wiki is an attempt to skirt responsibility and accountability.

What she said.

[""]

if i may offer a suggestion...i understand why this was created, but this is now a new day, and the old can safely be left behind.
let's keep this in as positive a light as we can. and to that end i have a suggestion for re-wording point number 4, changing it from this:

to this: Staff who are elligable to vote in this matter will be restricted to those who are curent members of the Ecumenical Team.

it changes the emphasis from those who are locked out to that of who is already present and eligable.:)


Changing this:

Staff who are elligable to vote in this matter will be restricted to those who are curent members of the Ecumenical Team.


Thank you. :)

[Athene]

So those of us non ET staff members who post regularly in one or more of the congregational forums would be excluded from voting. And what would the reason for that be? I am a member of 4U I just so happen to be helping the site out by moderating, I don't see why this should exclude me from voting on something as important as a moderator recall if it directly affects my congregational home forum.

[ProfessorMom]

elligable

spell check :)

[""]

A part of this is an illegal wiki (the recall part.)


No way a team on CF can say only their team can do recalls as pertains to their staffers.

That's untrue Tapero. There is nothing illegal about this wiki.

Please refer to the following FAQ guidelines:
In addition, it should be noted, that forum and subforum rules, policies, and protocol may specifically supersede the site wide rules, policies, and protocols just as state law can supersede federal law

http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=guideline_subforum_rules_protocol_policy#faq_guideline_subforum_rules_protocol_policy2






Any staffer desires to be unaccountable to members, should not be on staff.


This is an unfair accusation Tapero. Please note that the wiki allows MEMBERS of the Ecumenical forums to vote. It also allows members of the Ecumenical Team to vote. It only prohibits team members not on the Ecumenical Team, and posters who do not post in the Ecumenical Team forums. In doing this, it prevens hostile take overs from non-Ecumenical participants. Any wise government would do such a thing.

Does Cuba have a right to demand the removal of President Bush? Does the Governor of Massachusettes have the right to demand the removal of the Mayor of Seattle, Washington? Not hardly. There are laws that prevent this. Only the people of each city, and the gov't officials in that city are allows to remove their own. Any suggestion to allow outsiders to remove gov't officials is unreasonable. Please note, once again, the pasted portion of the FAQ Guidelines for policies and protocols.

Foru.ms is the country.
Each team is a state.
Each subforum is a city.

[""]

So those of us non ET staff members who post regularly in one or more of the congregational forums would be excluded from voting. And what would the reason for that be? I am a member of 4U I just so happen to be helping the site out by moderating, I don't see why this should exclude me from voting on something as important as a moderator recall if it directly affects my congregational home forum.

Once again:

If the governor of Kentucky happens to have a summer home in Boston Massachusettes, should he be allowed to petition for the mayor of that city to be removed and then participate in voting that mayor out?

What about the mayor of New Orleans. He spends his winters skiing in Colorado. Shall he be allowed to petition for the mayor of Colorado to be removed, and then also participate in voting him out?

I don't think so. Conflict of interest.

[ProfessorMom]

A staffer affects whole of CF, not just an area.Perhaps some staff are looking to have restrictions placed on them as far as job descriptions are concerned.
A staffers behavior affects all members.Agree 100%.

[""]

elligable

spell check :)


It was added to the wiki in with corrected spelling. :)

[suzybeezy]

A superadmin in charge of wiki catalog engineer says its an illegal wiki. I'd tend to believe that more than the person this wiki serves to protect.

[Melethiel]

Once again:

If the governor of Kentucky happens to have a summer home in Boston Massachusettes, should he be allowed to petition for the mayor of that city to be removed and then participate in voting that mayor out?

What about the mayor of New Orleans. He spends his winters skiing in Colorado. Shall he be allowed to petition for the mayor of Colorado to be removed, and then also participate in voting him out?

I don't think so. Conflict of interest.
These analogies don't hold up. For example, although I administrate Theology, I am a regular poster in TCL, and have been so as long as I have been a member here.

Would I be eligible to vote? If not, why not? Outside of my own jurisdiction, am I not a member?

[CaDan]

Foru.ms is the country.
Each team is a state.
Each subforum is a city.

Then what are those who float between teams at will, just one step above responsibility for their actions? Those who escape jurisdction and then rewrite the laws of one "country" to protect themselves? Transnationals?

[Athene]

Once again:

If the governor of Kentucky happens to have a summer home in Boston Massachusettes, should he be allowed to petition for the mayor of that city to be removed and then participate in voting that mayor out?

What about the mayor of New Orleans. He spends his winters skiing in Colorado. Shall he be allowed to petition for the mayor of Colorado to be removed, and then also participate in voting him out?

I don't think so.

Apples and oranges, this example makes no sense to me at all.

[RobNJ]

These analogies don't hold up. For example, although I administrate Theology, I am a regular poster in TCL, and have been so as long as I have been a member here.

Would I be eligible to vote? If not, why not? Outside of my own jurisdiction, am I not a member?


Yes, and there is NO legitimate reason you shouldn't be treated as such.

[CaDan]

Why do we put up with this behavior? Who is protecting Adiya from the consequences of her actions? The RC?

OK, RC, I'm calling you out.

[Teshi]

I have helped to create this protocol after noticing that some staff members, from other teams, are attempting to remove staff from teams that are not their own.

This protocol protects the Ecumenical Team from this.

And it starts protecting it just as you arrive :D Convenient, that. Clearly designed only for the best interests of Ecumenical Team :D

If a staffer is a part of an ecumenical subforum they should get a say. To draw on the tortured country-state-city metaphor, senators and presidents still get to vote in the elections for city, county and state-level offices in the region to which they belong...

[CaDan]

Commentary added.

[chaoschristian]

Foru.ms is the country.
Each team is a state.
Each subforum is a city.

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Erwin's original analogy went like this: the site wide WIKIs are like the federal government, the sub-forum WIKIs are like state government.

No where, no where in that analogy is there room for Staff Teams to become autonomous governing agencies.

If this is the vision upon which this WIKI is based, then it is seriously out of alignment with the rest of the site.

I will not condone a system that supports staff patronage. That was one of the aspects of the systematic and structural evil that was the hallmark of the old CF.

No way, no how.

[GraceInHim]

If a staffer is a part of an ecumenical subforum they should get a say. To draw on the tortured country-state-city metaphor, senators and presidents still get to vote in the elections for city, county and state-level offices in the region to which they belong...
:thumbsup:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/marinainhim/20070914_a9fe5788_kathy-w-mc-w-craz.jpg

[Melethiel]

Sh'ma Israel, members CAN cross-pollinate across forums - whether they are staff or not. If staff members from other teams are eligible to elect ET moderators for their home forums, then they are eligible to recall them. (On a side note, where is your transfer election?)

Same goes for other teams. On Theology, if ET staff members are regular theology posters, they are allowed to vote in Theology mods, and if it ever comes to it, they will be eligible to remove them. Your attempt to segregate "other" staffers from Congregational members will only perpetuate the "us vs. them" mentality that people have been trying to dissolve.

This wiki, as it is currently written, cannot stand.
And this has nothing with me having a personal vendetta against you, because I have purposefully distanced myself from this whole mess.

[""]

Commentary added.



Your commentary was posted in blue, seen below:

In the event of a request to remove staff from the Ecumenical Team, the following policy will be applied:

1. Only Ecumenical Team members may nominate another team member for recall and/or removal.
Regular posters may not petition for the recall of an Ecumenical Team Staffer.

2. Prior to nomination, the situation must be brought before the Team Leaders who will decide whether or not there is cause for a poll can be started.
Not even regular Ecumenical Team Staffers may petition for recall, only those with power and influential friends.

3. A poll will be started with two options: 1)Yes for Staying 2) Removal
This poll will be ignored, as it is only for giving people opposed to Transnationals a place to vent.

4. Staff who are eligible to vote in this matter will be restricted to those who are curent members of the Ecumenical Team.
But not regular members of FU. 'Cause they might, y'know, vote to remove those who are super-holy and have influential friends.

5. Non-Staff Ecumenical posters may vote if they have 600+ posts, and have demonstrated daily posting in the Ecumenical Forums over a period of 3 consequtive months. Posters who do not meet these requirements may not vote.
Votes subject to verification. May not apply to Transnationals. Void where prohibited by law. You mileage may vary. If you experience outrage or shock while reading this proposal, you may be experiencing the awakening of a social conscience. Please consult a member of the Pastoral Team immediately to be reassured that all is well. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I have removed it.

[Teshi]

I have edited one word in point five, so that it now reads:

5. Any Ecumenical posters may vote if they have 600+ posts, and have demonstrated daily posting in the Ecumenical Forums over a period of 3 consequtive months. Posters who do not meet these requirements may not vote.Thus far it appears that most folks in this thread feel that a staffer should be allowed to vote in his or her own Congregational subforum. If I ever end up on staff (God forbid :D ) I certainly would like to be able to vote for who mods of my home subforum, WWMC!

Also, I think "daily" posting may be somewhat unreasonable...some folks participate very regularly, but only on weekdays, or on weekends, or they have a few days away from the internet for one reason or another...perhaps a minimum weekly number of posts maintained over the last month or two would be more appropriate?

[helenofbritain]

Perhaps trashing this wiki would be appropriate? As an ET staffer, I am offended by it.

[""]

Perhaps trashing this wiki would be appropriate? As an ET staffer, I am offended by it.

You're offended at the thought of being protected from recall by posters and staff who do not participate with in Ecumenical forums?

So if some debate/support/friendship etc., staffers and their team members/friends petitioned for your recall, and then overwhelmingly filled up the poll for your recall, to vote you off, you'd be ok with this?

If Ecu staff members here are ok with this happening, then who am I to stop it. It seemed like a good protective measure to me, but let's see what the rest of the Ecu staff think. If they don't agree with my wiki, then we'll close it and just let things happen as they will. I don't mean to force my opinions on others here.

[Teshi]

Adiya, I see that you've changed the wiki back to its original wording. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because heaven knows I don't really get all the nuances of this whole wiki thing, but I thought they were supposed to be collaborative...that they gradually grow into something everyone can live with, not that they stay static in their original form. I can see editing out sarcastic comments (sorry, CaDan :P ) but legitimate changes based on in-thread discussion?

[""]

I have edited one word in point five, so that it now reads:

Actually what you did was roll back to the CADan stuff and then add your own to it, after I had already removed his blue comments. Could you please not rollback to his comments which are derrogatory and do not help with this wiki whatsoever. Thank you.

You can see the wiki history to verify my statements.

[pdudgeon]

don't we have some rules about harrassment around here somewhere? ;)

[Teshi]

Actually what you did was roll back to the CADan stuff and then add your own to it, after I had already removed his blue comments. Could you please not rollback to his comments which are derrogatory and do not help with this wiki whatsoever. Thank you.

You can see the wiki history to verify my statements.

I didn't purposefully add CaDan's blue commentary back in. It was already there when I made my change. Maybe I had a tab open with an earlier version, and that's what I was editing off of - I didn't intentionally roll it back. I'm not about to get involved in that.

Please address the substance of my change rather than making this into some kind of personal drama thing. I've added my change back in to the non-blue version.

[Athene]

You're offended at the thought of being protected from recall by posters and staff who do not participate with in Ecumenical forums?

So if some debate/support/friendship etc., staffers and their team members/friends petitioned for your recall, and then overwhelmingly filled up the poll for your recall, to vote you off, you'd be ok with this?

If Ecu staff members here are ok with this happening, then who am I to stop it. It seemed like a good protective measure to me, but let's see what the rest of the Ecu staff think. If they don't agree with my wiki, then we'll close it and just let things happen as they will. I don't mean to force my opinions on others here.


Oh yes I forgot, us non ET staff members are just itching to recall all you poor unsuspecting ET staff members, we don't actually have a reason, we just think it would be a hilarious thing to do.

[pdudgeon]

Adiya, I see that you've changed the wiki back to its original wording. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because heaven knows I don't really get all the nuances of this whole wiki thing, but I thought they were supposed to be collaborative...that they gradually grow into something everyone can live with, not that they stay static in their original form. I can see editing out sarcastic comments (sorry, CaDan :P ) but legitimate changes based on in-thread discussion?


collaborative yes. but that means that more than one person thinks it's a good idea. usually the wording of each section is discussed and hashed out until a concensus is reached, backed by either a poll or a vote. and it's only then that the changes are made.

[pdudgeon]

Oh yes I forgot, us non ET staff members are just itching to recall all you poor unsuspecting ET staff members, we don't actually have a reason, we just think it would be a hilarious thing to do.

i know that this was said in jest. but since things of this nature have happened before to the ET staff you will please pardon us if we do seem a bit edgy about it.:sorry:

[ProfessorMom]

I post in EC. But now I've forgotten what means with regard to the wiki.
(Especially since I thought we only had to sign up for foru.ms )

[Athene]

i know that this was said in jest. but since things of this nature have happened before to the ET staff you will please pardon us if we do seem a bit edgy about it.:sorry:

Really? Who?

[chaoschristian]

collaborative yes. but that means that more than one person thinks it's a good idea. usually the wording of each section is discussed and hashed out until a concensus is reached, backed by either a poll or a vote. and it's only then that the changes are made.

Not always. Sometimes there's a need for a radical intersection.

The original OP was a non-started.

I've edited to remove elements of patronage and cronyism and have given us a rational base from which to work.

[chaoschristian]

Question: who doesn't participate in the Ecumenical area?

[flaglady]

This thread is being
closed for staff review

[pdudgeon]

.

[Freedom&Light]

.

[flaglady]

PLEASE RESPECT
THE CLOSURE OF
THIS THREAD