CZ:Nomination page/Management Council/Pat Palmer: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Pat Palmer No edit summary |
imported>Pat Palmer No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- Commenting out the old statement from the 2010 election so the candidate can either repeat it or make a new statement ~~~~ | <!-- Commenting out the old statement from the 2010 election so the candidate can either repeat it or make a new statement ~~~~ | ||
I've been in CZ almost from the very inception, | I've been in CZ almost from the very inception, with varying degrees of involvement. Some of CZ's fledgling difficulties remind me of another organization I've been in for decades now--my local contra dance, which is a fully democratic organization. That group has had episodes where, with the best intentions in the world, an active volunteer developed perhaps too great a sense of ownership over some activities and began "bossing" and "criticizing" other volunteers, who simply quit. Volunteer organizations, and perhaps churches, are vulnerably to the risk of over-zealous volunteers developing too much control. It has the counter-intuitive effect of discouraging others from volunteering, and then the over-zealous ones are reinforced yet more in the belief that they have to hang on to make it happen. | ||
If I have a | The fact is, writing in CZ, which is difficult enough as it is, can be and should be, mostly fun. An atmosphere dominated by struggles for control will deter new volunteers, and that is somehow what we need to curb. | ||
I believe that no one in CZ, myself included and the sysadmins excluded, is so utterly invaluable that project should fail if they leave. The last thing I intend ever to say here is "I will fight to the very end." If fighting is what is required, it's never going to work. What I say is, I still have hope, and I haven't given up despite difficulties figuring out how to govern ourselves, and I do very much appreciate everyone in here for devoting their time to the project. | |||
More specifically, I think that perhaps the [[CZ:Editor_Policy]] would benefit for a major revision. To me, it suggests too much discretionary power to a single Editor. A single editor acting alone, no matter how conscientious, may on occasion become too emotionally involved in a dispute to act neutrally. The policy deters constables from stepping in and reining in an editor whose style of interaction with other editors can be considered intimidating, because it says "The Constabulary should not be called, nor should it attempt to settle, disputes between editors of an article". I feel that this policy needs to be rewritten, calling all editors to a high level of tact and restraint, and empowering the constabulary to enforce politeness at all levels at all times, ''especially'' on the part of editors who (like managers in private industry) can potentially wield their "power" over authors. There is potential for an over-eager or overly-aggressive (or maybe merely rude) editor to intimidate authors lacking editor status. | |||
I would probably go even further. I would like to see the selection of Editors to be based on more than just "expertise" (how ever we may define that); I would like Editors to be selected based on a track record of having been able to work in CZ for a while with interactions that remain polite in the face of inevitable disagreements. | |||
--> | --> | ||