The idea is to have an Inner Sanctum/council/whatever title is agreed, of people who wish to explore the possibilities of a community lead forum.

The Inner Sanctum...
Would be responsible for all decision/policy making of a general nature, not for day to day stuff.
Would be open to anyone wishing to join(possibly with a nominal fee to show willing and put money in the pot!)
Would allow those wishing to have a direct say in the running of the forum have a say
Would allow those who wish to just post on a forum to just post with the option to join if they are interested at a later date

Additions/subtractions/alterations/objections?

The only thing I objection to is the money... it'd be a waste of a stamp to mail 50 cents to DG as that is just about all I could afford ATM, if I could afford it I would have done it already, and in the future if I have the cash I will.

Other than that, I would add in examples of decisions to be made and how the decision making process would work, in your opinion (consensus, majority rule, are the decisions for upgrading the site or other similar issues, no highjacking of threads on decisions made by inner sanctum members (you have to stick to the subject), etc..).

Otherwise, I think its a grand idea.

I might like to take part, but with the proviso that you can drop out if, say, you were finding it too frustrating. Not that I'm saying it will be, but just...if.

StarsChildren wrote:
Fair point with the cash, I'm similarly placed atm.
My thinking is the group/council/woteva would have as it's first task to decide it's decision making process My thoughts on this are pretty well known but I'm able to recognise remaining inflexible on this would possibly lead to just me n dubs sitting in a smokey room.
I've been wondering about the 'thread jacking' too, I don't know if it's possible to have a forum viewable to all but only postable on by the group/council/woteva I'm not keen on it being private but I am keen on it not being distracted by distractions!

Gilly wrote:
Obviously making it compulsory would be counter-intuitive. There may be certain matters (within the group/council/woteva) that just don't interest certain people and they are willing to trust the others with it and focus their energy on areas that do interest them, all matters that members would have to discuss and agree upon from the outset! If it's only dealing with non-urgent matters it also takes any pressure off like a deadline and (I'd hope) lead to more relaxed discussion and avoid frustration. Possibly adopt WUB's pledge idea (not necessarily the wording) as the first item on the agenda.

Yeah, I can see you and dub's along "smoking" in a room too

However, on topic. That would be a great first decision to be made by the group (how to make decisions)...kind of contradictory to each other and would take many a long hours to reach an agreement on how to reach an agreement on decisions such as the decision to agree I think I just confused myself with that one...

*deep breathe* Anyway... no, I don't think it should be private either, but if the inevitable should ever occur of people trying to distract everyone (like we all got ADD or something ) could it be made private with access only granted for posting to some? Or would this require a mass email chain between the members of the IS (only missing one letter and we'd be the IRS )? Other posters distracting us is a good possibility, but when I said that I meant just the group making the decisions derailing the thread.

So... have I got this right?

... all that's required of me, is that I sit here on this couch, get stoned and watch you lot get merrily on with it... is that about the jist of it?

For some reason I really dislike the idea of an 'inner sanctum' as it implies a division - My preference is to have community issues out in the open in the community chest and people free to use their vote or not - those that do not wish to participate do not have to but at least everything would remain transparent.

As things stand we tend to leave discussions open ended with no codification of the decision made - I feel that we should be leaving polls up for a set amount of time and then the person who made the poll announces the decision based on the numbers at the end of the amount of time and then closes the thread - whatever the majority vote is carried forward - those who wish to make their vote count will and those who wish to opt out can - for me this is the fairest option and the most transparent it also will hopefully prevent a cliquishness or people feeling that the forum is somehow less 'theirs' if they are not part of an ongoing decision making group.

psketti wrote:
*raises hand* I retract my participation in this IRS... I'm gonna go sit on the couch and get stoned with Sketti

I agree it should be in the open, with as many participants as want to join in, and that the focus should be to come up with an agreed, clear set of guidelines for how votes will take place in future.

Once that's achieved - which may not be as easy as it sounds, given that even on the mod voting thread, there were about 3 different interpretations of the seemingly straight-forward results - everything else should be plain sailing.

psketti wrote:
Not so bad this admin lark eh....

(psssst...you might want to do a bit of shouting or something now and again....keeps you looking busy and all that )

oioioi wrote:
I was waiting for/expecting you to bring the inner sanctum up again.

Your idea above cant be done on this version of kunena...but it actually can be done if upgraded to 2.0 (the latest version), so the idea is do-able.

They have made the permissions settings more specific on the newest version because people have been asking for it...ie there is a seperate "can read/view" and "can reply" setting...whereas on this version its both or nothing.

I guess we should run the upgrade eventually but i cant say when atm...Frog knows some of the pitfalls/things that can go wrong more than myself when upgrading and he is really busy atm with other things.

Novum! get back in your corner!
You don't tell the new guys they can upgrade this place...their liable to start clicking on random shit trying to do it and crash the entire place!

StarsChildren wrote:
Yes ma'am.



P.S. I think I deserve even more spankings.

novum wrote:
Between pharma's cocktail, my own, and the vodka I've been sipping on I'm in a mood... you got it

StarsChildren wrote:
*Bends over in anticipation*

novum wrote:
Novum

Me going to spank him

Figured I'd give everyone else a visual



Damnit...I've been distracted from the topic... what was it again?
... ... ... oh look, a kitty

in principle i agree with thor that a core discussion group could run the risk of being seen as divisive. that said, as long as every member can opt in, there's not much grounds for that perception. as gilly said, it seems crucial that opting out is as easy as opting in.

the way things have been tried before here is a bit of an epic fail. i cant think of one key decision that the members have nailed down. fptp voting is just crap. evidence, recent votes that split opinion and led nowhere. sure i can see some areas where a straight majority rule is ok but on key developments it has to be better for everyone to be content with the plan.

the only real justification for an inner group is to minimise thread derails on important subjects. ref all the comments poo-pooing consensus we have seen that take the convo away from the intended subject. perhaps if we agreed to let the mods keep any "policy" discussions on topic there'd be no need for a group as it were?

dubmeup wrote:
Eh?

Dubs, the comments 'Poo-pooing' consensus were valid contributions to discussions on whether consensus or majority vote is the way to go. So your comment there reads like you only want people to take part if they are in agreement with your notion of pushing for 100% consensus.

i was referring to the numerous comments we have seen that just say stuff like, you'll never get consensus, which dont actually say anything but do a good job of blocking the debate. heck iirc one poster even declared that there could never be a consensus because they would make sure of it....

its no secret that i'd like to see us discuss things like adults and work together to shape the place so i wont be justifying that view any more. the reasons are clear.

i would like to see the proponents of majority rule put their views across as to why that is a preferable method. i am happy to be convinced.