Proposal

hmm can we use a better word than class, you know class carries alot of baggage.

the main changes from MadFarmAnimalz suggestions are an automated process for promoting to senior user.

And a concorde voting system for choosing people.

And a very complicated method for choosing administrators, my worry is that administrators have ultimate powers they should be able to trust each other and work together with no tension at all and with minimal disagreements.

Administrators should also trust each others technical abilities and each others embrace of agreed procedures.

which is why I suggest current administrator team must approve candidates.

Rationale

Since quorum is caclulated in terms of Senior Users and since basic resources don't start oppening up until you're senior user this practicaly means that the community is composed of senior users and above. We cannot have an open and democratic community if entery into the community is tied to acceptance of a certain class of members, this renders the right for gratis membership and member equiality void.

Seniority is just a measure of commitment and activity afterall.

I'm not sure if it should be completly automated though, I think moderators should have the right to bypass the system in order to promote some members (but not the opposite). essentialy to empower those who can contribute alot.

the numbers I chose for the scoring system are arbitirary please consider them as just place holders.

I chose a concorde voting method when selecting people for several reasons.

• IMO it works better for voting among relativly small numbers
• it works better for choices that are very much similar to each other
• concorde minimizes the impact of personal relationships in the choosing
• elegantly resolves the small majority results, since members clearly state the order of preferences
• minimizes tension, when voting among tight group like moderators individual relations may come to play, an open voting method as opposed to an anonymous one resolves some of these problems but may add tension among friends for not selecting each other, a concorde method eases these pains abit.
• No gaming, gaming is more likely to appear when choosing people than when choosing policies, an anonymous poll system can not be practicaly secured without too much trouble, an open voting method resolves this.
• It seems to work quite well for others (debian).

Member Class Assignment Policy

Purpose

This document details the process of selecting Administrators, Moderators and Senior Users.

It also covers the procedure for dealing with members who violate their mandates or abuse their positions.

Senior Members

Senior members shall be choosen from among new members in an auotmated fashion.

A score will be kept to measure each members activity in the LUG, any member who reaches a score of 100 points will be automaticaly promoted to senior member.

Only contributions in the in topic areas of the eglug.org website and activities will be scored, moderated/unpublished contributions will not be counted at all.

• Each comment gets 1 point.
• Each New Forum topic gets 2 points.
• Each New non minor revision to an existing book page (WIKI) gets 1 point.
• Each New WikiPage gets 3 points.
• Each New form based article gets 5 points.
• Each New article gets 10 points.
• Volunteering in an Event gets 20 points.
• Helping in organizing an Event gets 40 points.
• Leading an Event gets 80 points.
• Moderators can grant up to 30 points, consensus of three moderators is needed for this.

Moderators

Moderators are chosen from the pool of senior users.

The Number of moderators shall be 20% the number of senior users and the procedure to choose moderators shall be as follows

• Twice a year near the end of February and the end of August the number of new moderators needed will be calculated and a call for candidates from among senior members will be anounced.
• If the number of candidates is less than or equal to th number needed, candidates will be automaticaly promoted to moderators.
• Otherwise a concorde voting poll will be used and the highest ranked candidates are choosen.
• Canidates are not allowed to campaign at all, violating this rule will be a violation of their mandate.
• The community may choose to change the perscentage of moderators instead, a vote is proposed, if the vote is approved the moderator choosing process is suspended until the new number is determined.
• If the new percentage is less than the current one moderators vote using a concorde method among themselves to choose who will leave and become senior user unless enough moderators resign.

A moderator may resign at any point from her duties.

Administrators

Administrators are chosen from the pool of moderators. An administrator is nothing more than a moderator with additional strictly technical responsibilities which means that technical competence is a prerequisite.

Due to technical details administrators have to function as once entity, there is no place for disagreement at all between administrators.

Number of Administrators shall be 4 or 20% the number of moderators (whichever is larger).

Once a year after reviewing the charter the number of Administrators needed is calculated and new administrators are chosen according to the following procedure:

• A call for candidates is anounced among moderators.
• Candidates shall present their technical capabilities in web development and administration, but otherwise are not allowed to campaign.
• Administrators are then charged with approving candidates , a candidate is approved unanimously or not.
• The community votes on approved candidates using a concorde method, an extra choice will be provided to show disagreement with the administrators approvals and disaprovals.
• If the disagree with administrators approvals choice ranks anywhere other higher than the last quarter of the ranking it will be taken as a sign of great discord in the community, the vote will be void and a discussion shall start to address the roots of the issue.
• In case of discord the administration team is disbanded, a new call for candidates is anounced and a direct concorde voting method is used to rank candidates.
• This time campaigning will be allowed.
• The top candidates are chosen.

An administrator may resign at any point, but must stick around until a replacement is voted upon.

Violation of Mandate

In case of administrators or moderators violating their mandate the community may vote on demoting the them.

Violation of mandate represent a breech of social contract, the member is demoted to new user with 0 score.

Membership revocation

Only administrators can propose membership revocation.

Membership may only be revoked if a member:

• Persists in violation of the AUP
• Persists in unethical behavior not covered by the AUP

Since both these criteria are subjective, membership revocation must be approved by the community through 27 votes:

• A New user's vote will count as 1 vote.
• A Senior user's vote will count as 3 votes.
• A Moderators or Administrator's vote will count as 9 votes.

Where a user has his/her membership revoked, and where all 27 votes are senior or new user ballots it can be understood that there is a significant disconnect between the administrators/moderators and the community at large.