The issue was raised yesterday and dropped; but I would like to bring it into the open. It doesn't seem either practical or democratic to place all the responsibility for administering the OAC on me. Surely it would be better for a panel of administrators to be formed. This leaves two questions: Who? and How?
The first is easy: please volunteer and, if we have too many, we'll find a way of choosing.
The second may have to involve plural use of my email entry address and code. I don't know. But we can surely find out.
I would just hope that the panel covers a range of types of member, so that it does not look like a one-sided clique.
I'm used to the administration part of ning sites so I'm willing to take part of the responsibility. It is actually possible to assign administrator privileges to other members but you're the only person who can do that.
Thanks, Steven and Francine. I specifically didn't list the tasks of an administrator since I am still finding out; and whatever panel we decide on will have to agree to share them as we can. My guess is that they are not onerous, but there needs to be someone to respond whenever necessary. Perhaps Steven could say more. The main point is that each of us travels and gets distracted from time to time, so we need cover. I would have thought three people in addition to me would do it, but I am open to suggestions. Maybe one member should have some technical skill or at least quite a lot of online experience.
There is the further issue of a committee to steer the OAC in the right direction and rectify mistakes. I don't think this should be confused with the the tasks involved in administration; but it would make sense for the administrative panel to be represented on what for shorthand purposes might be termed the editorial board (or politburo). We need to think about how much we need democratic centralism. At least it's better than monarchy. Of course I could volunteer for the role of the Colonel Saunders of this operation...
I've had a quick look at the Ning help forums. It appears that you can set moderators for specific tasks. You can read more here.
Perhaps that will make spreading out the responsibility more democratic and less taxing on any one individual. With writing my thesis and being about to move house (countries) again, I don't want to give the impression that I'll be available 24 hours a day, but I'm very willing to help out whenever I'm logged in. I'm in GMT+1 at the moment. I think that it would be a wise idea to spread moderators out by time zone. I suppose we'll also need to work out some ground rules - what kind of content should be removed, organizational stuff, etc - so the admin/moderation process can be sufficiently transparent.
Sure, a good idea to have various folks helping run OAC. But may I suggest a group with rotating membership? The rotation could be staggered so as to maintain ongoing expertise. Given the speed of development, I would suggest "terms" of three months. The beginning members could sign on for one, two, and three months, to get the stagger started. What do you think?
I could not agree more. You respond to everybody, you are so generous in this way. I am volunteering. I will not be in front of the computer very long right now but will be back in 4 hours.
It may be an idea that as part of rotation one can introduce an apprenticeship (virtual) and overlap. Before one leave one takes the responsibility one helping the next volunteering person. I agree 3 months is short. It can be longer but since there will be a overlap one part of it may be a lighter in terms of work load that while sharing the problems and tasks one can also pass down some of the work burden.
We now have four volunteers plus me: Steven, Fran, Hulya and Max. That looks like a good spread to me, even if there are endless permutations to include other categories. I rather like the idea of retiring into a Colonel Saunders role after a few months of learning the ropes. Maybe we could design an abstract profile for me, instead of the grinning face that appears as a sort of OAC logo at present. We can decide on how to implement the rotating policy, but I would suggest 6, 9 and 12 months occupancy. I'll take the 6 months option.
You have been so central to this whole process from the beginning. Thank you. I think your suggestion for how to organize a rotation is admirable. Like you, I feel a debt to @irenarco. I wonder if he is already with us, as Javier Pinzon. I could be mistaken. But you and he have certainly paid your dues when it comes to being part of any initial administration. As I said, I would take the six month option.
Can we try to stay on what Keith started in terms of sorting out administration/moderation. Clearly there should be a diversity but in order to get things going we can start with a tentative group. I want to be useful and responsible yet I would be more than happy to just get things going and leave immediately to open place for diversity (Max and I are both from Canadian Universities but we have quite different networks ). I really want to be pragmatic here but I believe I am careful enough not to sacrifice values for the sake of pragmatism.