Talk:Undernet Nominations

From Callahan's Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

OK, here's where a lot of the mechanics will be worked out, and discussed. I'll start of with some structure, and we can mod it as need be. AuntieEm 04:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR TALKPAGE POSTS WITH FOUR TILDES (~~~~)

Contents

Suggestions

Nominations form has been added to the main page. Please discuss it directly below this if there are any suggestions.



I have a couple suggestions for streamlining the nomination process.

  1. Each nominated patron must have been a channel operator at the the time of deregistration.
  2. Each nomination requires at least a second, if not a third.
  3. This is less important, but perhaps we should require that nominators be registered users of the Callahans wiki to prevent spamming from unknowns.
  4. The nomination should be less than a month, but more than two weeks.
  5. Removing yourself from nomination should be discouraged, but not illegal. If the person insists enough, they should not be nominated.

That's it for now. I probably will have more. — BassBone (TALK · CONT) 04:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


Except for 1, I agree. I think that is too restrictive. Granted there need to be restrictions (Disallowing the nomination of someone who's never stepped foot in channel is prudent, to say the least, but only ops seems a bit restrictive. By the way, who has this list of ops? There were over 40 iirc.), but why so tight?

Also, who gets to vote? How do we define that? There have been several patrons that haven't stepped foot into channel for over a year, I think, yet objected to the application. What's the cut off? 3 years? 8 years? (Point in case: Six hasn't been in almost 9 years, iirc. Does he get to vote if he decides to come back?)

AuntieEm 04:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Voting should be open to channel regulars. Probably sometime in the last 3 years or so. If they show an interest in returning to the channel perhaps it should be less restrictive. (Remember to indent... Keeps conversations clearer)— BassBone (TALK · CONT) 04:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


People should be allowed to recuse themselves from being nominated, whatever their reason. They shouldn't have to insist "enough". Just saying they don't want to be nominated should be all they need do.

As to it being limited to channel operators, you're aware that zem's basic attitude was "whoever asks for ops, gets them", right? Nominations should be open to any channel user, operator or not.

As to who can vote? Any #Callahooligan, past or present. Simply because who decides who is a "real" channel user and who isn't? Hopefully, those who really have no valid interest in hanging out on the channel or participating there will do the right thing, like Guppie did, and just say to themselves "It's time for me to move on and leave this to the people who live there now."

I'm all for seconding, possibly thirding nominations.

I also think the 499s should come out of the nominees list. Perhaps the top nine vote getters on the nominees list after the manager is chosen?

Elfi 04:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that the high-level ops-in-X should be restricted to those on the nominee list, and I admit that it's personal with me - I can't be nominated for Channel Manager here - it's a violation of Undernet rules - because I'm already the channel manager of #Traveller. I don't think that that should disqualify me from being a high-level op-in-X here, though; in fact, I think that people who are both plugged into the local culture and have previous experience as a channel manager could legitimately be seen as preferred potential candiates. --FreeTrav 07:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I like the idea of pulling the top 9 nominees by vote, as well. AuntieEm 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so people have to be willing to be nominated as CM in order to be willing to be a 400lvl op? Flaim 00:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I would oppose such a restriction on ops. See above. --FreeTrav 07:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
So would I, since i'd be willing to be an op, even at 400, but not CM. Flaim 23:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I like nominations open to everyone. Anyone not qualified will be sorted out in the voting, and spamming should be obvious. I also dislike the requirement of prior op-hood; if someone's qualified (and wants the job), let em at it. And removing oneself from the nomination should be *vital*. Flaim 21:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


  1. I agree that anyone should be nominable. Nominatable. Whatever.
  2. I agree that anyone who makes it clear that they are not interested in being nominated should not remain in the list of nominated candidates. Don't make them jump through hoops to denominate themselves.
  3. A brief reminder: Anyone who is already a channel manager for an Undernet channel is NOT eligible, UNDER UNDERNET RULES, to be channel manager here. Anyone ineligible to be channel manager here because of Undernet rules should recuse themselves as soon as possible.

Having said the above, now comes the real opinion stuff:

  1. While, as above, I do not favor restricting who can be nominated, I would strongly urge people considering making a nomination to favor individuals who are current regulars, and 'plugged in' to the current channel 'culture'.
  2. It may be unavoidable, but I REALLY don't like to see personality issues entering into this sort of thing; I'd rather see a focus on qualifications and general compatibility with the CULTURE. In all the time I've been in channel, I've never seen us in a 'kum-ba-ya around the campfire' mode; the lines of like-and-dislike between any random pairs of patrons probably looks like a cross between a drunk spider's web and the Gordian knot. There's gonna be conflict. I'd rather not see that conflict poison this process, especially when it's based on inaccurate or no-longer-accurate perceptions.

-- FreeTrav 01:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Where's the correct section to discuss the voting process rather than nominations? I'm pretty happy with the discussion abobve re: nomination procedures. ManinBlak 16:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't see anything about how to actually do nominations. I guess, unlike voting, they should be public? Like stick a section on the main article where anyone puts up a name they nominate, and anyone else adds their sig under the name they support in order to provide seconds & thirds? Does that more or less emulate the proverbial town meeting? -- KEYofR 20:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say get up a form that's easy to add to (Like that table or something). Maybe something like this:
Nominee's Name (Nominee's signature, if accepting nomination)
Nominator's Name
Seconder's Name
Third's Name
(Blank Line)
Nominee's Name (Nominee's signature, if accepting nomination)
Nominator's Name
Seconder's Name
Third's Name
To sign as a nominator, all you need to do is add the 4 "~" for a signature, date and time stamp. We should also probably limit the ppl supporting a nominee to ONLY the number required to do so, else it turns into a voting type situation (Oh, this person has 10 ppl nominating them) -- AuntieEm 04:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


It might be easier if someone creates a table of some sort to add folks names to.. so Fred gets a nomination and goes on the list.. then maybe there be a ticky for someone to second Fred? and so on? If folks want a third ticky to be thirded on their nomination dependent on the number of times you want someone to be nominated and seconded? I do feel that if someone doesn't want the job, they shouldn't be forced to take it. They shouldn't have to explain why either, lest Fast Eddie do a number on them with his blackjack. :) If no one has, I suggest they post this to LJ and alt.c for those who aren't on IRC when its active so folks can discuss here. (Please don't remove other people's signatures, and please make sure to sign your own!)


I'd like to suggest that, depending on the nominees, and I realize we have a month of nominations to go, but I just don't see many, if any other nominations being submitted, if the choice remains between Maninblak and Da5id, whoever is not elected should become one of the 499s (or nazgul, take your pick on what you prefer to call them). I'd like to hope that anyone else nominated, if anyone else is, would also be worthy of this. CaptJosh 09:59, 05/05/07 (PDT)

You mean, it works fine until say, someone nominates me, lol. -- AuntieEm 00:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
If we follow CaptJosh's idea, it could disrupt my request (below) that the 499's / Nazgul not be obligated to run for Chanman / Sauron. As explained below, I would prefer the 499's / Nazgul to selected / elected completely independently of the voting / nominating for Chanman / Sauron. Nanassi 15:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Date For Start of Noms

When shall we start the nominations? Obviously after we've hammered out all the details and worked out a system, but does anyone have an outside idea of when this will all get rolling?

How about this, just as a starting place. Let's try to start the actual nomination process by say, 05MAY (Cinco de Mayo!). Tha gives us 10 days from the day I'm posting this.
Let's try to *close* the Nomination process by 31MAY.
Open the vote 01JUN
Close voting 30JUN
Tabulate (If necessary to do so manually), and publish the results, with verifications by 03JUL.
Handover of channel ASAP.
Again, just a place to start. We do have a decent bit of time, so I'm not trying to rush us, and give the biggest amount of time for someone to take part.
AuntieEm 02:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Looks OK to me. KEYofR 14:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
It's workable as written, but since we can't formally transition until July 31 or Aug 1, we can probably extend both the nom period and the voting periods by up to two weeks each without problem. --FreeTrav 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Understood, but we've already had patrons comemntit was too long already, which indicates to me we have found a good balance point :) Maybe extend the voting period -- AuntieEm 20:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Voting Procedures and Certifications

It's a wiki, MiB, add it yourself :)

Anyways, let's start here with voting procedures.

Aussie rules? American rules? FSM Rules? I personally vote for Aussie
How? web application? email?
Who oversees the results? Should those that count, recuse themselves from nomination?
AuntieEm 18:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
What's wrong with holding the vote on the wiki. Aside from the fact that it's not anonymous. It's easy to see the history and find double votes and vandalism that way.— BassBone (TALK · CONT) 02:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
what about the cases like me and glam who log in through the same computer?{edit}internet connection? would one of us have to abdicate their vote? Sheyona 04:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
No. You each create your own login for the wiki, just like you would for any other web page. -- AuntieEm 04:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Aussie Rules? FSM? Info please. (And I've not done much with wikis, so I hope my signature works, and the indenting...) Nanassi 07:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

From FreeTrav 07:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if what I'm describing is Aussie Rules or something related but different, but here's what I'd like to see as the voting procedure:

  1. Voters mark the candidates 1, 2, 3, ... in order of preference.
  2. Ballots are tabulated based on which candidate is rated #1
  3. Candidate with lowest number of #1 votes is eliminated.
  4. Ballots that had eliminated candidate as #1 are retabulated using #2
  5. Repeat until only one candidate remains.

The effect of this procedure is to get a candidate that everybody can accept, even if that candidate isn't the preferred candidate of a majority.

An alternative procedure that also might work is to give each voter a number of ballots equal to twice the number of candidates, and the voter distributes his/her votes among the candidates as s/he sees fit. Winning candidate is the one that has the most votes.

FreeTrav 07:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT) ends.

I like that FT. Under US type schemes, if a guy gets 25% of votes, and everyone else hates him, but there were 5 other opponents and no single one musters more than say 20%, then the 25% guy is elected, even though 75% of people hate him and would have accepted almost anyone else. Definitely something wrong there. -- KEYofR 00:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We're creeping up on voting, and yet there is no system in place to do so. I would like to STRONGLY insist that voting results are OPEN, i.e., *anyone* can see them, and tabulate them. AuntieEm 17:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Not sure who posted the above about being open, so if whoever it was can tag it, it'd be less ironic :) I have had several people say they don't think the wiki should be the only way to vote. I'm not going to question too much on why; voting is important enough we should make it as accessible as possible, regardless of the reasons. Can we pick a non-nominable person who has decent geek skills to allow incoming email voting, where the votes can be verified via IRC by said email admin to be sure they're legit? Then the 'absentee' (from the wiki) votes could be added to the wiki by that person and that person only. FT, I was wondering if you'd go for something like this as you're already a channel admin somewhere else and IIRC have your own domains where you could set up a temporary 'callahansvote@' address. What do you all think?

Given that the nomination period is winding down, and there's only two candidates, the contest 'degenerates' into a typical first-past-the-post election. I see the procedure as follows:
  1. I have created two email addresses, callahans.maninblak@freelancetraveller.com and callahans.da5id@freelancetraveller.com, for the voting process.
  2. To cast a vote, send email to the address that contains the nick of the candidate you wish to vote for.
  3. The email address in either the From: line or the Reply-to: line must be viable - I must be able to send a message to that address and it should reach you, without my having to jump through challenge/response hoops or prove MY humanity in some other way. If Reply-to: is set, that email address is the one that must be viable; if the From: is set, but not Reply-to:, THAT email address must be viable.
  4. The subject line of the email should contain the string CALLAHANS VOTE: followed by a list of the nicks that you most commonly use in channel. Wildcards are permitted, e.g., CALLAHANS VOTE: FreeTrav FreeTrav-*
  5. The body of the message can be whatever you want, but will be meaningless in terms of the vote, except that if there is body text present, I may choose to use it in verifying that you actually sent the vote (see next item).
  6. I will contact you at a time when we are both in-channel (or at least appear to be, using one of the nicks named in the ballot), via /msg. I will ask two questions: Whether you submitted a vote, and one other question that I believe will, if answered accurately, lend credence to the hypothesis that the vote I am examining is in fact yours. Note that I will not simply send the questions to /msg and hope you'll reply to them; I will only ask the questions "face to face".
  7. When I have validated the ballot, I will Reply to the ballot indicating that the ballot has been verified/validated. If validation of the ballot fails, I will Reply to the ballot indicating so. If the ballot is validated, the response will contain the questions I asked to validate the ballot, and your responses. If validation fails, the questions will be in the response, but not the answers I received.
  8. If you have not received a validation or nonvalidation notice by the weekend of or following the seventh day after you send your ballot, contact me in /msg.
  9. You may only have one validated/accepted vote on record. Once a vote is accepted as valid, any further votes purporting to be from the same person will be discarded with no attempt at validation. If you receive a non-validation response, and it really was you that cast the ballot, you may cast another ballot, which will need to be validated using the same procedure (but almost certainly a different validation question).
  10. The voting period will commence at 00:00 Fri 1 June 2007 EDT, and will end 23:59:59 Sat 30 June 2007 EDT (Timezone selected because it makes it easier to spot early or late votes on my mail client). Ballots that show times earlier that the start date or later than the end date when downloaded into my mail client will be silently discarded as invalid. Don't jump the gun, and don't wait for the last minute.
  11. The final tally will be posted on the main Undernet Nominations page as soon as possible after the balloting closes, no later than the second Saturday in July 2007. The total number of ballots cast for each candidate will be posted, followed by the number of VERIFIED/VALIDATED ballots for that candidate in parentheses. After the results are posted, anyone who wishes to run their own tabulation may request the ballots, saved in a unix mbox-formatted file (which will contain the validated/nonvalidated responses as well as the ballot). If someone volunteers to provide hosting space, I will be happy to upload the mbox files to that space.
I've posted here for commentary. If there are no concerns/problems brought to my attention by the time I go to bed on May 28, I'll move this over to the main Undernet Nominations page as the official procedure. --FreeTrav 00:48, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
FreeTrav, this is putting all the work into your hands. I don't mind that, but it's also potentially a lot of little things to keep track of for a whole month. If we do this, can I help? Nanassi 12:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I also have a quick comment re the format of votes. I'd really like to see votes only be votes. Names, and no commentary. I'd hate to see voting get derailed by any sideline commentary on the voting page itself, and would request that when we do the voting, we agree in advance if we see any comments on the page other than votes that it be removed. There're plenty of venues for people to vent frustrations and such, but the voting page itself won't be the place, IMO. ManinBlak 08:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


I'm in total agreement with Aussie rules voting. For zem's election, a simple webmail form was used for voting, and the mailto sent the mail to each of the scrutineers. They IIRC came from the ranks of the recused nomineees. Keemo 01:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Other Channel Management Thoughts/Issues

Should the naming of the high-level ops-in-X be left entirely to the discretion of the CMgr? Personally, I tend to lean this way, but I can't claim that people who I've chatted with in channel (and in /msg) who have suggested that the channel as a community should have some input into that decision are completely wrong - certainly, there is the potential for divisiveness no matter what the final decisions turn out to be; long-time ops who are denied the cinnamon bun may take insult, or at least feel hurt, especially if people who have been perceived as 'problem children' get one.

Ultimately, I don't think this should be a major issue, as it has historically been rare that anyone actually uses those powers, and in the one case I can recall where actual abuse of the power occurred, the channel manager at the time did quickly remove the abuser's cinnamon bun. It's arguable, though, that ops should have been used more often than they were, with the sole object of keeping the peace. I would, quite frankly, like to see us not have any more episodes like those that have cause past patrons to feel that they were specifically and personally diswelcomed because of real and/or perceived personal attacks by other patrons.

I would not unilaterally implement policy, but I would certainly support and enforce a policy of "No hitting", were one to be declared: when an interaction starts degrading into 'tu quoque', all involved parties should be sent to their rooms to cool off, no matter who 'started' it. Note that this is very explicitly not a 'kum-ba-ya' policy; if you want to screech about anyone's position on any topic, go right ahead, be as vicious as you want in your analysis and rebuttal - but keep it about the positions, not about the person holding them.

--FreeTrav 07:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I always love solutions that work for both sides. Being a fan of the 9 being elected by the channel, and the above where the CM picks them, does CM picking 4, and electing the other 5 make sense? (Or 5 and 4, 6 and 3, 3 and 6 are all failry workable too, IMHO) -- AuntieEm 15:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Because we do have plenty of time, let's wait until we have voted in the chanman to decide about the nazgul. I'm personally biased here: I'm interested in being one of the 9, but if we take that list from votes for chanman, I would have to run for Sauron to have a shot at nazgul. I am not interested in running for chanman against one person particularly because I like him as our choice for chanman. But if the nazgul are selected from the people nominated / voted for for chanman, I would have to run for chanman. Ok, I've not had enough coffee, did that make sense? Nanassi 20:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Nanassi, for the same reason. Flaim 20:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
This doesn't apply to me, obviously, but I can see where people might be willing to be a 499 who know they beyond a doubt don't want to be the 500, so I have to mention my bias towards what Nan and Flaim have said, in that the 499s can be chosen through whatever method post-chanmgr or at least not from the same group necessarily. Someone might be a 499 who was also in the nominations list for 500, but I don't think they should have to have been. And as a further comment, it's possible one 500 might say they want 9 499s where another might say 5. We had 9 in part because we expected a few to 'get stale' which is in fact what happened (OtherBill for example got pretty busy, and for this current round requested that he not be appointed to a role of 'signifigance' for time requirements), but we could have 5 and if the 500 decides one has gotten 'stale' and been gone too long or can't focus on it, then we could elect or the 500 could pick (based on what ratio is used) a replacement from more active folks.ManinBlak 22:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Agreed on holding off the election for Nasgul; I simply wanted *a* election of at least a majority of them. Having the election afterwards is just fine. -- AuntieEm 03:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Nanassi's reasoning applies to me as well. --FreeTrav 10:18, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Random Thoughts

Not sure if this is the right place to mention this or not, but I resent being added as an X supporter without being asked first. For that reason, and because I do NOT support Brendan as channel manager, I have voted NO on the support vote. Sorry folks, blame me. Ban me. I fucking hate the place now, anyways. Elfi 06:17, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Y'know, this is bs. Why the heck can't cservice have an option to just pay for X instead of having to beg for it and then keep up the proper rain dance to keep it. KEYofR 06:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Heh, CServ is just this huge bueraucracy see, just this guy, you know. They are the Vorgons (sp?) of IRC. -- AuntieEm 12:47, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


From Beki Believe it or not, some of us don't know what we are doing (the thing about adding someone elses name above was me who typed my name cause it doesnt pop up with a signature) and I am guessing a lot of folks have never logged in here for one reason or another. I really feel that in order to avoid more shit storms than necessary, we create a hot mail box that folks can email in their nominations, and maybe their votes when the time comes. The last time we had Aussie rules voting, we actually had Aussies and a Canadian count the votes because they understood how it works. I am not sure if we could get more folks who understand that method of vote counting. Do we? Would they volunteer to count?

You logged in, you clicked "edit", you wrote some stuff, You clicked save. It's fine and you did perfect. This is the best there is without asking someone to actually write a cgi and web input form which also somehow maintains a data set. Or asking someone to receive emails from all over and transcribe them onto a web page so everyone else can see. Thats all kind of non-trivial, and wouldn't necessarily be undoable, except, wiki's exist now and it's asking a lot of someone to do all that for no reason. This discussion part can be messy from people not knowing all the fancy details of wiki editing. The actual voting part will probably have to be emails and manual posting of results, or a special purpose cgi if someone happens to want to write it (I may, shouldn't not that hard as long as no one cares how pretty it is) This page is just for information and discussion, and is basicallt the best possible venue for that, except perhaps a bulletin board. But we don't have a bulletin board. As it is, this is first and formost a web page anyone can read. If they choose to feed back via the channel or the mail list instead of hitting "edit", thats at least no worse than a traditional web page would have been. If someone has no idea how to make a wiki do what they want but they manage to hit edit and just write a blrup right in the middle somewhere "I don't know what the heck im doing but I wanted to say..." that is fine. That is a million times better than anything else. Someone else will clean up a really bad edit no problem.
As for the signature, just type four tildes in a row and hit save. It doesn't "pop up" , but like I said, it's not important. You can just write your nick or anything you want, or remain intentionally anonymous, but you should say anonymous or something so it doesn't look like your message was part of the next persons message who did sign. Actually, I was thinking the discussion might be more readable with the sigs in front of posts instead of at the end? Dunno, probably pros & cons either way. -- KEYofR 23:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Deep Thoughts

Come on, you know you thought it too ;) Actually, I thought of a game for tension releif after duking it out above. I'll say a Jack Handy-esq deep thought, and you add to it. It can be a continuation of the same thought, like explaining it or fine-tuning it, or some (seemingly) completely unrelated new thought but just write it next as if it would naturally come next. I think don't bother with the ::indents, just an ever growing list, which may end up reading like a bizarre story, where everyone writes a line at a time. You may write more lines even if you already wrote one, but I suggest allowing at least a few others to accumulate not from you before adding another, since the point is to build something written by a different person every line KEYofR 23:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think cardboard should be edible. KEYofR 23:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Gwyndolen, the famous owner of this humble servant, knows that cardboard is edibile, for boxes are amoung the greatest of treasures. Nanassi 07:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Unlike the second greatest treasure -- indelible markers, cardboard can't be used for successful graffiti. -- AuntieEm 14:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Everytime someone accuses me of being incorrigible, I wonder why they're saying I'm like a piece of cardboard... ManinBlak 13:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

'Tis a wonderful thing to be incorrigible; one always finds incorrigement in the most unexpected places... --FreeTrav 10:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Matter is a verb. Energy is a noun. Matter and energy are equivalent, with a speed factor. Does that mean that nouns and verbs are the same if you talk fast enough? --FreeTrav 10:39, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Does it matter? ManinBlak 19:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

499 Noms

So far there are not enough noms to fill the 499 positions if there are still to be nine of them. Should we create a separate nomination section for the 499s?— BassBone (TALK · CONT) 18:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Technically, that's the Channel Manager's decision, as to how we get the 9. I'd say though, that any channel manager we'd want would listen to us if we wanted to elect them. Let's leave it open for awhile here, and discuss it, and see where it goes. -- AuntieEm 02:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Did you see the discussion above about the 499's? Several of us are interested . Nanassi 09:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

New Issue

According to this some seem to be having issues with the nomination process. I'm going to unsemiprotect the page now since there seem to be only two nominations. Beyond that there needs to be some sort of quick and dirty wiki howto for right now. Perhaps we should extend the nominations by a week until this gets ironed out?— BassBone (TALK · CONT) 02:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You gotta be shitting me.
Well, so far, to nominate someone, or seconded it, you need to know how to:
Copy & Paste
Put 4 tildes in a row to sign it.
If this is confusing, you can always try the help pages, or google, etc.
Well, my bad, you do need to register, too. This is leaving out things like knowing how to connect to the internet, start your browser, and other fairly minor if I do say so, "hurdles". AuntieEm 08:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I understand that extending the nominations seems like a good idea due to the confusion, but I wonder whether, with 2 full weeks remaining, it's really necessary? Da5id 02:34, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm thinking if people really aren't able to do the edit, there's lots of people here whose names are prominent that can assist, so an extension is really unnecessary when all that is necessary is to ask myself, FT, Bass, Da5id, Auntie, etc. I see no reason that can't function as a workaround. Flaim 12:22, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Channel web page

Is anybody interested in taking on the channel's official web page? I've decided not to vote in the elections, and probably won't be a regular patron again. #callahans was there for me when I needed it, a haven of acceptance and shared values for what the channel should be. But I don't need it anymore, and it's clear that the values of the current patronage at large are no longer compatible with my own. That means that I'm not getting much out of #callahans these days, and I don't have a sense that anybody in the channel values what I have to offer either. (And, you know, that's OK. Life takes us to new places.)

Anyhow, I'll probably continue to stop in on periodic SFI missions when I've got time, but life is increasingly taking me offline once I clock out from work. I don't mind keeping it, but it doesn't really make sense to have the channel's official web site in the hands of somebody who isn't a regular. (I'll continue to take care of www.callahans.org.) There's a lot of #callahans history on the web site, which has passed through numerous other hands before coming into my keeping.

And to the new webgeek, I suggest writing up something about whatever is decided with regard to channel management, ops, grievances, etc. so people have a place to go when questions or complaints arise. We purposely kept that off because the channel regulars at the time specifically didn't want formalized procedures, but a lot of aggravation might have been saved had more people been aware, for example, of the existence and intended function of the 499 ops.

Buttrfly 18:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)Butterfly

Oh, yeah. If y'all decide who wants to take on the site, just get in touch with me and I'll pass along the files. Buttrfly 18:28, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.callahanswiki.org/index.php/Talk:Undernet_Nominations"
Personal tools