Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA IRC Meeting log (2-12-05)

Session Start: Sat Feb 12 10:38:42 2005
Session Ident: #AMA
[10:38] * Now talking in #AMA
[10:38] * sets mode: +n
[10:43] * alex756-away is now known as alex756
[11:33] * Sam_Spade has joined #AMA
[11:34] <Sam_Spade> Hello :@alex756
[11:42] * Grunt has joined #AMA
[11:42] <Grunt> ..mind if I lurk? :)
[11:42] <Sam_Spade> when is this meeting supposed to be?
[11:42] <Grunt> 1700 UTC, I believe?
[11:43] <Sam_Spade> and why isn't the wiki working :(
[11:43] * Grunt changes topic to 'Welcome to the meeting of the Association of Member's Advocates of Wikipedia, starting 1700 UTC.'
[11:43] <Grunt> Server upgrades are in progress.
[11:43] <Sam_Spade> I guess thats good
[11:43] <Sam_Spade> I shouldn't be editing anyways, I have 2 mid-terms on monday
[11:44] <Sam_Spade> besides, I'm liable to get banned for presenting unpopular ideas @
[11:44] <Grunt> Presenting unpopular ideas are not grounds for banning...
[11:44] <Sam_Spade> sure they are
[11:44] <Grunt> long as you don't attempt to disrupt operations to get the idea
[11:45] <Grunt> across
[11:45] <Sam_Spade> I think the wiki is becoming a sort of POV oligarchy
[11:45] <Sam_Spade> every controversial page has a POV group w more power than the others
[11:46] <Sam_Spade> and they have recently discovered how to do anything they want, via email lists of fellow POV advocates
[11:46] * Grunt grumbles
[11:46] <Grunt> This is exactly the sort of problem we are worried about
[11:46] <Sam_Spade> I thought of that a long time ago, but people don't seem to turn out to vote for NPOV, which is my POV
[11:47] <Sam_Spade> I have opinions, but I don't want the wiki citing them as facts
[11:47] <Sam_Spade> I want all expert POV's expressed neutrally
[11:47] <Sam_Spade> thats why I like encyclopedias
[11:47] <Grunt> That'
[11:47] <Grunt> s the idea of NPOV..
[11:48] <Sam_Spade> but w all this voting, thats not what happens
[11:48] <Sam_Spade> most people who want to vote have a POV
[11:48] <Sam_Spade> if the vote is about communism, most voters will be communists
[11:48] <Sam_Spade> if its about anarchism, the same
[11:48] <Sam_Spade> if its about nazism, most voters will be people who don't like nazism
[11:49] <Sam_Spade> these votes simply display the demographics of who cares about the subject
[11:49] <Sam_Spade> not what is most neutral, or factual, or whatever
[11:49] <Sam_Spade> I probably shouldn't begoing off about this here, sorry
[11:52] <Grunt> don't worry, it's perfectly valid to be saying those things :)
[11:52] <Grunt> If the RfC system worked better this would be less of an issue
[11:53] <Sam_Spade> it doesn't work very well
[11:53] <Sam_Spade> but its better than nothing
[11:53] <Grunt> indeed.
[11:53] <Sam_Spade> I think VfD is worse than nothing
[11:54] <Sam_Spade> as are the polls and votes which are becomming increasingly common
[11:54] * alex756 The meeting will start in about five minutes.
[11:54] <Grunt> ..with a whole two advocates and one observer
[11:54] <Grunt> lovely..
[11:54] <Sam_Spade> that would be cool
[11:54] <Sam_Spade> but more people are likely to turn up
[11:55] <Sam_Spade> then we can argue and get mad
[11:55] <Sam_Spade> ;)
[11:55] <Sam_Spade> hey, since we have such a small turn out, whatdya say we vote on my permanant position as "Imperator"?
[11:55] <Sam_Spade> real fast tho, before anybody shows up!
[11:56] <Sam_Spade> ;)
[11:56] <Grunt> heh. :)
[11:57] <Sam_Spade> I would love to have a NPOV voting block
[11:57] <Sam_Spade> if need be, I'll start a wiki-political party
[11:57] <Sam_Spade> but it would be best if we had less voting, and more concensus
[11:58] <Grunt> m:Don't vote on everything..
[11:58] <Grunt> also m:Polls are evil
[11:58] <Sam_Spade> how about "don't vote on anything ;)
[11:58] <Sam_Spade> yeah, I like that 2nd one
[11:58] <Grunt> I had a hand in starting that one =)
[11:59] <Sam_Spade> the meta wiki gets precious little use
[11:59] <Grunt> how sad.
[11:59] * Angela has joined #AMA
[12:00] <Sam_Spade> hello angela, how nice of you to be here
[12:00] * alex756 changes topic to 'The meeting of Feb. 12, 2005 has commenced on 17:00 UTC.'
[12:00] <Sam_Spade> whats w the strong non-AMA presence?
[12:00] <Angela> hi. I'm just interested in how the AMA is progressing. I hope you mind an ex-member being here :)
[12:00] <alex756> Do you think we have a problem with that Sam?
[12:00] <alex756> I don'
[12:00] <alex756> Ops.
[12:01] <Grunt> Angela: make that two ex-members. :)
[12:01] <Sam_Spade> oh, not at all
[12:01] <Sam_Spade> I think its very nice, as I said
[12:01] <alex756> I was thinking if we want to go into some kind of "executive session" we can have a closed meeting, but I see no reason to allowing participation from anyone who is interested.
[12:01] <Sam_Spade> maybe if they were known trolls or whatnot, that could be bad
[12:01] <Sam_Spade> but their highly regarded users
[12:02] <alex756> And Angela and Grunt are both former members, so maybe their observations will be useful.
[12:02] <Sam_Spade> I think its a blessing to have them :)
[12:02] * jag123 has joined #ama
[12:02] <Grunt> Hi jag!
[12:02] <jag123> sup?
[12:02] <jag123> mind if I lurk?
[12:02] <Sam_Spade> I'd rather if you participated
[12:02] <Sam_Spade> since turn out is so low
[12:02] * ziedoros has joined #AMA
[12:03] <Grunt> Hi ziedoros!
[12:03] <Sam_Spade> but I guess thats less of a problem by the minute!
[12:03] * ziedoros has left #AMA
[12:03] <Angela> just noticed my typo. I meant "I hope you _don't_ mind" of course :)
[12:03] <alex756> Regarding our agenda there have been some private discussions about the idea of having a "committee" or working group.
[12:04] <Sam_Spade> public discussions as well
[12:04] <alex756> Since we do not have that many active members it does not really make that much sense to have more of a structure until we have more members.
[12:05] <alex756> Thought I still feel just having one coordinator is not sufficient.
[12:05] <Grunt> If there aren't all that many active members..
[12:06] <Sam_Spade> I think everybody agrees we ought to have more active members, possessed of more responsibility. If not, then I'm not sure what were doing at all ;)
[12:08] <alex756> And we need to know more about member activities, who is doing advocacy work and some kind of procedure to make sure advocates have some basic understanding of the dispute resolution process.
[12:08] <Sam_Spade> somebody needs to keep track of what members are doing, and how much of it is being done, and by whom
[12:09] <alex756> I still feel that we have to respect the privacy and confidentiality of advocacy work; we need statistics and maybe some links but nothing that violates the privacy between advocates and those they help.
[12:10] <Sam_Spade> if such privacy is desired, I agree
[12:11] <Sam_Spade> personally I'd like more scrutiny however, not less
[12:11] <Sam_Spade> if nothing else it would show how much I do ;)
[12:12] <alex756> I think that there should also be some kind of buddy system, where an advocate to always turn to someone with more experience and discuss their case with them.
[12:12] <alex756> Ops, that should have been "where an advocate CAN (not to) always turn".
[12:13] <alex756> Maybe we should have a log system to do that?
[12:14] <alex756> Do you think that is a good idea Sam?
[12:16] * Anthere has joined #AMA
[12:16] <alex756> After a date certain we ask advocates to list completed cases with a short description of their type of intervention?
[12:16] <alex756> Hi Athere.
[12:16] <Anthere> hi, will be fully there in 5 mn
[12:16] <Anthere> or 10 mn
[12:20] * Sam_Spadeaway has joined #AMA
[12:21] <Sam_Spadeaway> dang, I seem to be 2 people :(
[12:21] * Sam_Spade has quit IRC (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
[12:21] * Sam_Spadeaway is now known as Sam_Spade
[12:21] <alex756> Now you have merged back into one...
[12:21] <Sam_Spade> :D
[12:22] <Sam_Spade> did I miss much?
[12:22] <Sam_Spade> did you crown yourself emporer, alex?
[12:22] <alex756> Anthere is coming in a few minutes, and I was asking you a question about a log system.
[12:22] <Sam_Spade> ok
[12:23] <Sam_Spade> we seem to be agreeing alot, unless I'm mistaken
[12:23] <alex756> No, I crowned myself emporium.
[12:23] <Sam_Spade> ;)
[12:23] <Sam_Spade> so long as I'm Imperator, all is well
[12:23] <alex756> I have a good deal on used GPLs today.
[12:23] <alex756> I am also selling some out of date page histories.
[12:24] <alex756> For the record I want to mention our discussion about a "certification" process.
[12:25] <Sam_Spade> I favor that generally
[12:26] <alex756> We had been talking about a certification process and also having some kind of "advocate in training" program.
[12:27] <alex756> Here, for the record is an excerpt of an email I sent you Sam, "something
[12:27] <alex756> like a test would be really interested, i.e. multiple
[12:27] <alex756> choice and I would do the marking of the exam.
[12:27] <alex756> It might be used to qualify members, we could give
[12:27] <alex756> them a seal of approval after they pass the test?
[12:27] <alex756> Something like "Certified by the AMA Coordinator"
[12:27] <alex756> with a link to the certification process (maybe they
[12:27] <alex756> also need a couple of references from people they
[12:27] <alex756> have worked with) and maybe an essay question
[12:27] <alex756> or two, they would submit the test to me via email,
[12:27] <alex756> it would be done on the honor system.
[12:27] <alex756> " (end of quote).
[12:27] <jag123> What would be in the test?
[12:27] <Sam_Spade> in my reply I emphasized learning by doing
[12:27] <alex756> It would be questions dealing with the dispute resolution process.
[12:28] <Sam_Spade> i.e. having cases
[12:28] <alex756> That is what the "advocate in training" idea would deal with.
[12:28] <Sam_Spade> but I generally agree w alex's proposal
[12:28] <Sam_Spade> and it would work well w a buddy or mentor program
[12:29] <Sam_Spade> w experienced advocates helping nube's
[12:29] <Sam_Spade> and each other, of course
[12:29] <alex756> Yes, I think we are all pretty much in agreement with these basic ideas now.
[12:30] <Sam_Spade> the buddy and mentor aspects wouldn't require a vote of members, so long as they were voluntary
[12:30] <alex756> What do you think about having an assistant coordinator Sam?
[12:31] <Sam_Spade> and the crtification would go over much better if uncertified persons were still allowed to advocate (not that we could stop them anyhow ;)
[12:31] <Sam_Spade> I think you could use an assistant
[12:31] <Sam_Spade> or secretary, or whatnot
[12:31] <Sam_Spade> I also think we should ask someone to volunteer to compile AMA data, and records of cases
[12:31] <Sam_Spade> we need a handful of new positions
[12:31] <alex756> Yes, I think we should still have an open membership policy, and then the voluntary "certifications".
[12:32] <alex756> What positions do you think we need?
[12:32] <Sam_Spade> so9meone whose focus is on integrating new members and co-ordinating the certification / buddy process, etc...
[12:32] <Sam_Spade> those 3 are a good start
[12:32] <Sam_Spade> altho I'm sure more would come up organically
[12:32] <alex756> Maybe we should list all the tasks and figure out how many people are needed.
[12:32] <Sam_Spade> maybe it could be the same number as we have active members ;)
[12:32] <alex756> I think we only really have about five really active members.
[12:33] <Sam_Spade> ok, so five positions would be good :)
[12:33] <Sam_Spade> give everybody a fancy hat, and there will be less complaining
[12:33] <Sam_Spade> and in theory, more will get done
[12:33] <alex756> Maybe I should just deputize people for specific tasks.
[12:33] <Sam_Spade> w division of labor and increased responsibility comes efficiency
[12:34] <Sam_Spade> so long as their willing, sounds good
[12:34] <alex756> I am just suggesting that we clarify what specific tasks are needed so we can have a consensus about that.
[12:34] <Anthere> sorry, i sill read you later, but unfortunately, my husband needs to use the computer for a while, so I cannot truely attend the meeting. I apology :-(
[12:34] <Sam_Spade> quite alright
[12:34] <Sam_Spade> thank you for the kind words, Anthere
[12:35] <alex756> That's o.k. Ant, we will be posting the minutes as usual later.
[12:36] <Sam_Spade> the trick will be ensuring each of us is well suited to our specialized task
[12:36] <alex756> So, let us see, the issues that we have are, membership development, buddy system and certification. Is there anything else we need Sam?
[12:36] <Sam_Spade> yes, compiling of data
[12:36] <Sam_Spade> records of cases
[12:36] <alex756> Well, don't you think that really is within the coordinator's role already?
[12:37] <alex756> I think we just need a better system that the members can follow on a regular basis.
[12:37] <Sam_Spade> I don't like you having more work than necessary
[12:37] <alex756> That also puts to rest the idea of "informal" vs. "formal" advocacy.
[12:37] <Sam_Spade> ?
[12:38] <Sam_Spade> I enjoy informal advocacy
[12:38] <alex756> I think a self reporting system is o.k., it just needs to be set up on an ongoing basis.
[12:38] <alex756> My point is that there is no difference, there is only "advocacy".
[12:38] <Sam_Spade> hmm...
[12:38] <alex756> People are saying they are "informal" advocates.
[12:38] <alex756> What does that mean?
[12:38] <Sam_Spade> I like pointing out that I'm being informal
[12:38] <alex756> I think if you are advocating, you are advocating. Period.
[12:39] <alex756> What is "official" advocating then?
[12:39] <Sam_Spade> well, let me point out a distinction
[12:39] <alex756> Please.
[12:39] <Sam_Spade> some people (in theory) might advocate a cause they know little about, simply as an impartial advocate
[12:40] <Sam_Spade> they would be more formal, i assume
[12:40] <Sam_Spade> I pretty much only advocate in cases where I have a POV
[12:40] <Sam_Spade> which makes me perhaps more partisan, and less impartial
[12:40] <Sam_Spade> in such a case I usually mention I am acting "informally"
[12:41] <Sam_Spade> also there are MANY cases where the client has not officially accepted my assistance
[12:41] <alex756> I don't think an advocate has to be NPOV.
[12:41] <Sam_Spade> in these I am most certainbly informal
[12:42] <alex756> But the point I am trying to make is that from the perspective of the AMA informal or formal is not really an important distinction.
[12:44] <Anthere> back
[12:44] <Anthere> reading
[12:44] <alex756> I think that when someone calls me and asks me for legal help I help them even if they are not technically my "client" it is still legal work.
[12:45] <alex756> So, even if someone justs contacts an AMA member and asks for some information I think that also fits into the balliwick of advocacy. It is helping the WP editor get a better understanding of the dispute resolution process.
[12:46] <Anthere> I have a suggestion
[12:46] <Anthere> from time to time, we see people getting obviously confused between mediation process and arbitration success
[12:47] <Anthere> could not be a situation where you could get involved and contact the person
[12:47] <Anthere> if necessary privately ?
[12:47] <alex756> I see nothing wrong with mediators or arbitrators suggesting to someone that they get in contact with the AMA if someone is confused.
[12:48] * Sam_Spadeaway has joined #AMA
[12:48] <alex756> Is that what you mean Ant?
[12:48] <Anthere> no, i mean the AMA getting in contact directly
[12:48] <Sam_Spadeaway> Deutsch-telecom sucks
[12:48] <alex756> But we don't have any kind of process for that.
[12:48] <Anthere> why ?
[12:49] <alex756> That would mean that someone from ArbCom or a mediator contact me. That is certainly a possibility, no one has done so to date.
[12:49] <Sam_Spadeaway> we have one of each here today
[12:49] <Sam_Spadeaway> wait, one arb, 2 mediators, yes?
[12:49] <Angela> 2 currently inactive mediators
[12:50] <Sam_Spadeaway> thats contact! W00t!
[12:50] <Sam_Spadeaway> ;D
[12:50] <alex756> I see no problem with anyone contacting the AMA and suggesting that I contact a member and tell them about our association.
[12:50] <Sam_Spadeaway> I think thats rather an ideal circumstance, actually
[12:50] * Sam_Spade has quit IRC (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
[12:50] <alex756> But I cannot follow all the disputes on WP to see if someone could benefit from AMA assistance.
[12:51] * Sam_Spadeaway is now known as Sam_Spade
[12:51] <Sam_Spade> refer away, please!
[12:51] <Sam_Spade> also, I'd like it if most disputes had 2 advocates involved, one on each side, if possible
[12:52] <Sam_Spade> that would be more fair (assuming their desired)
[12:52] <alex756> Yes, if we had enough advocates that would encourage a certain collegiality too.
[12:52] <Sam_Spade> hopefully!
[12:52] <alex756> That is why I think we need to have a membership drive sam.
[12:52] <Sam_Spade> getting more advocates is NOT a problem
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> I can do that, easy
[12:53] <alex756> I think former arbitrators would make idea members.
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> but I want just a touch more structure 1st
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> sure
[12:53] <alex756> But we want members who PARTICIPATE not just sign up and then do nothing.
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> exactly
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> thats why we need more structure
[12:53] <alex756> I think you and I both agree that structure will help membership development.
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> and rewards for service!
[12:53] <alex756> But I think that the structure should just be informal.
[12:53] <Sam_Spade> when do I get paid? ;)
[12:54] <Sam_Spade> seriously tho, we need some incentive
[12:54] <alex756> If you volunteer I will give you some wikimoney, o.k.?
[12:54] <Sam_Spade> I have a simple idea
[12:54] <alex756> But when I mentioned "AMA member of the Year" award everyone seemed to balk.
[12:55] <alex756> I think that member statements that talk about AMA advocacy experience might be a good thing.
[12:55] <Sam_Spade> how about iof the co-ordinator can give people positions (assuming they want them) kinda like your deputizing idea
[12:55] <Sam_Spade> that wouldn't require alot of red tape
[12:55] <Sam_Spade> and assuming the positions amounted to responsibility, rather than authority...
[12:55] <Sam_Spade> who could complain?
[12:55] <alex756> Like appointing someone Deputy in Charge of Membership Development?
[12:56] <Sam_Spade> pretty much, yeah
[12:56] <alex756> Well, I think people might want to know why someone was chosen for a particular job.
[12:56] <Sam_Spade> actually, I think all active members should be responsible fopr something
[12:56] <Sam_Spade> that would increase harmony, methinks
[12:56] <alex756> Yes, but then we are changing the criteria for membership, this amounts to a bylaw change.
[12:57] <Sam_Spade> why change the criteria for membership?
[12:57] <alex756> I still think that basic AMA membership is just open to all.
[12:57] <Sam_Spade> we should allow anyone to join, as always
[12:57] <Sam_Spade> but have certiofied, active members separate from other members
[12:57] <alex756> If someone wants to contribute more, they can do that, on a voluntary basis.
[12:57] <Sam_Spade> a different list
[12:57] <alex756> Personally I think that having tiers of members is NOT a good idea.
[12:58] <Sam_Spade> inactive members shouldn't be fired, just moved to a another list
[12:58] <Sam_Spade> I strongly favor it, we all know that
[12:58] <alex756> It creates too much hierarchy.
[12:58] <Sam_Spade> I am a hierarchy advocate
[12:58] <Sam_Spade> ;)
[12:58] <alex756> Yes, I know that sam.
[12:58] <Sam_Spade> and I won't be happy until I am Imperator!
[12:58] <Sam_Spade> ;D
[12:58] <alex756> That is why I was trying to placate you with all kinds of certificates and roles.
[12:59] <alex756> I think we can have people apply for "Certification" and also to volunteer to be on a buddy list.
[12:59] <Sam_Spade> its not a problem tho, because I think hierarchy always exists, and will grow organically no matter what we do 9assuming we do anything)
[13:00] <Sam_Spade> sounds good to me
[13:00] <alex756> Yes, sociologist might argue that any democracy has its "pecking order" but for the sake of the association, that only has a half dozen active people do we really need more formal structure? We need more informal participation. That is what we need IMHO.
[13:00] <Sam_Spade> hm
[13:01] <Sam_Spade> I want more structure, formal or informal
[13:01] <alex756> We could give everyone a title, give everyone a list to be on, but what does that have to do with providing advocacy services to WP members.
[13:01] <Sam_Spade> not alot
[13:01] <jag123> I agree with alex
[13:01] <Sam_Spade> just some bare bones
[13:01] <alex756> I think having these meetings has already created a lot of informal activity, and that is good.
[13:02] <alex756> I would like to begin to have it bear fruit, beyond the survey and the membership logs and suggestions that we are discussing.
[13:02] <alex756> The problem with "active members" is what is the criterion for such status?
[13:03] <Sam_Spade> if we kept track of what sort of fruits members have specifically been producing, we might be suprised at the extent of the harvest ;)
[13:03] <Sam_Spade> doing something
[13:03] <Sam_Spade> and maybe alerting you about it?
[13:03] <alex756> I am not talking about members Sam, you keep confusing the activities of the members with the organization.
[13:03] <alex756> They are two separate things.
[13:04] <Sam_Spade> I only see the organization as a tool for producing results, in this case advocacy
[13:04] <alex756> I think all we need is a minimal amount of information about member activities, like what I was asking for in the survey to which you objected.
[13:04] <Sam_Spade> whatever it does that increases that production is likely good
[13:05] <alex756> I think we agree that a buddy system and a certification process could increase interest and productivity.
[13:05] <Sam_Spade> I support you on that last
[13:05] <alex756> Maybe also having some kind of training or seminar activity or having a roundtable discussion about cases on IRC here.
[13:06] <alex756> To keep due process or fundamental justice concerns in mind I think I should draw up a certification process proposal post it somewhere and ask for comments.
[13:06] <Sam_Spade> as far as cases I suspect I desire more focus and better records than you, but that can sort itself out
[13:07] <Sam_Spade> sounds good
[13:08] <alex756> I think what User:Michael Snow is doing at the SignPost is really the kind of documentation we can use that can have so use to AMA members later on.
[13:08] <alex756> He is sort of acting like a medieval English law reporter in that regard.
[13:09] <Sam_Spade> I don't know anything about it
[13:13] * Grunt is now known as GruntWillBBL
[13:13] * Wally|AMA has joined #ama
[13:14] <alex756> He is writing Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Arbitration_report is called "The Report on Lenthy Litigation".
[13:14] <Wally|AMA> Argh, I'm late.
[13:14] <alex756> Hey Wally, Glad you can join us.
[13:14] <Wally|AMA> Morning Alex, morning all.
[13:14] <alex756> We have some observers today.
[13:15] <Sam_Spade> wow, this signpost rocks!
[13:15] <alex756> Grunt, Angela and jag123.
[13:15] <alex756> Yes, Micheal Snow is to be highly commended.
[13:15] <Wally|AMA> Sounds great. May I ask what I've missed, or should I do that in PM or somesuch?
[13:16] <Wally|AMA> Dreadfully sorry again. :/
[13:16] <alex756> Wally, before you arrived we were talking about having a "certification process" and establishing a "buddy system".
[13:17] <alex756> And Sam wants some kind of active member status.
[13:17] <Wally|AMA> That's actually something I wanted to ask about.
[13:17] <alex756> But I don't really want to create different membership categories, just create some tasks.
[13:17] <alex756> We were talking about the Coordinator's inherent "deputizing" power, and how it might be used.
[13:18] <Sam_Spade> people looking for an advocate shouldn't have a list w mainly inactive members on it to choose from
[13:18] <Wally|AMA> I agree, Sam. If I can find my post...
[13:18] <Sam_Spade> the wikis down
[13:18] <Wally|AMA>
[13:18] <Sam_Spade> at least partially
[13:18] <Wally|AMA> Here we are.
[13:19] <Wally|AMA> It is?
[13:19] <Sam_Spade> they are upgrading the servers or somesuch
[13:19] <alex756> How about telling members to put star next to their names if they are interested in accepting inquiries regarding new cases?
[13:19] <Wally|AMA> It's been working fine here...
[13:19] <Sam_Spade> that won't help prospective clients much
[13:19] <alex756> The servers seems to be coming and going on line.
[13:19] <Wally|AMA> Well there's an issue about when we vote, too; if we don't know who's active we don't know what a majority is.
[13:19] <Anthere> morning Wally
[13:19] <alex756> Why not Sam?
[13:19] <Wally|AMA> Morning Anthere.
[13:20] <Sam_Spade> they likely won't know what the stars mean
[13:20] <Sam_Spade> besides, some of those people arn't even using their acounts at all
[13:20] <Sam_Spade> like "mrs.hippie burning
[13:20] <alex756> We at the top of the list, Please only contact members with a star after their name, others are currently not accepting new cases.
[13:21] <Sam_Spade> I tbink that was just a sockpuppet
[13:21] <Sam_Spade> that sounds good, alex
[13:21] <Sam_Spade> thats a good compromise
[13:21] <Wally|AMA> I agree. There shouldn't be kicking-off of inactives or any such nonsense.
[13:21] <Sam_Spade> but the list should have all the people w stars at the top
[13:21] <Wally|AMA> Just so we know, and clients know, which advocates are around and which aren't.
[13:21] <alex756> Thanks. I think as far as a quorum is concerned we don't need to worry about that.
[13:22] <Sam_Spade> so as to have less to wade thru
[13:22] <alex756> I'll post a message to each member page and then they will have to add the star. That makes sure that only active members who read their talk pages will add stars.
[13:23] <Wally|AMA> Mightn't it just be easier to section off actives and inactives?
[13:23] <Sam_Spade> that was my thought originally
[13:23] <alex756> Like I said to Sam, that creates an artificial dichotomy, we don't have any "official" notice about active and inactive members and with the star someone can always add it or remove it when they wish.
[13:23] <Sam_Spade> but alex dislikes it for some reason
[13:24] <Sam_Spade> I'd highly prefer separate lists
[13:24] <Wally|AMA> I just think there should be some sort of requirement for noting continued activity every two weeks.
[13:24] <alex756> If you want to have a page that states, list of members currently accepting new cases that is o.k..
[13:24] <Wally|AMA> That sounds good.
[13:24] <alex756> But if someone is not accepting new cases that does not make them "inactive".
[13:25] <alex756> I am not accepting cases, so that would mean that the Coordinator would be "inactive".
[13:25] <alex756> That would be misleading.
[13:25] <alex756> Because I am certainly active concerning the AMA, not just accepting cases.
[13:25] <Wally|AMA> Where activity is concerned, I had that seperate - whether or not one is accepting cases, active/inactive shows whether they're involved at all.
[13:25] <alex756> Or what about Michael Snow, he is doing all this writing and that is really an advocacy work, but he is not accepting cases.
[13:25] <Sam_Spade> yeah
[13:25] <Wally|AMA> You'd be active but not accepting cases, under that standard.
[13:26] <Sam_Spade> I want 5 stars by my name!
[13:26] <alex756> I think unless we change the membership criteria that we can't have active and inactive members, we never discussed that before.
[13:26] <Wally|AMA> But at this point it seems like hair-splitting. If we can do a seperate page with members taking cases, that's fine for me.
[13:26] <Wally|AMA> As long as it's given prominence over the main member list on the front page.
[13:27] <Sam_Spade> nobody is proposing removing members
[13:27] <Sam_Spade> just clarifying who is available
[13:27] * GruntWillBBL is now known as Grunt
[13:27] <alex756> Maybe the list of members should be moved to a subpage but I still prefer the star system,
[13:27] <Sam_Spade> and who is doing what
[13:27] <alex756> because it shows the members who are not active that there are only a few active members.
[13:28] <alex756> It might make them want to contribute more.
[13:28] <Wally|AMA> Sam is right, I think, about the star system being unnecessarily complex.
[13:28] <Wally|AMA> And a seperate page would provide the same incentive, wouldn't it?
[13:28] <alex756> Of course for the people who have left WP that is irrelevant.
[13:28] <Sam_Spade>
[13:29] <Sam_Spade> I like walls idea on that
[13:29] <Angela> what's so bad about removing inactive people?
[13:29] <alex756> We have one main page that gives people an idea of who we are and lists members, we are not just only about accepting advocacy cases.
[13:29] <Sam_Spade> *wallys
[13:29] <Sam_Spade> good point, Angela
[13:29] <Sam_Spade> but its much more controversial, and might require a vote
[13:29] <Sam_Spade> so its best to start small
[13:30] <Sam_Spade> by clarifying who is available to help clients
[13:30] <Wally|AMA> I agree there also, but we should proceed carefully.
[13:30] <alex756> Nothing bad about it Angela, just that since we are an organization that prides ourself on due process and fundamental justice we would not do anything that changes our rules until we give people adequate notice to ojbect.

Continued at Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log(2-12-05)Pt.II