New subtle level in hierarchy of community maintainership?

[marc_esadrian]

Title
New subtle level in hierarchy of community maintainership?

Short, concise description of the idea
Communities on Livejournal are great, but one thing they lack is a security option for the original founder / maintainer.

Full description of the ideaIn a perfect world, you can trust the internet buddy you just made as co-maintainer not to kick

Comments

-1

[mlady_rebecca]

What happens when the journal's original creator moves on? I'm the senior maintainer of a community that was passed on at least twice since it was founded.

I don't think any changes should be made that make existing maintainers at the mercy of the community creator.

Re: -1

[fiddlingfrog]

That was addressed in that the primary maintainer could pass the status on to another maintainer.

Re: -1

[splitcomplex]

What happens if they move on without doing so?

Re: -1

[fiddlingfrog]

Then the situation would be exactly like we have now - a bunch of maintainers with equal status, each capable of ousting all the others (except for the dormant primary) on a whim.

+1

[fiddlingfrog]

I think a hierarchy of maintainers would be useful not only for establishing ownership or leadership of a community, later on down the road it'd also help in letting communities access other, currently individual user only, benefits. The only one that springs to mind right now is letting a paid community use Google advertising (because I remember a suggestions about that from last year) but there are probably several others

Re: +1

[marc_esadrian]

"Besides, the ability for a maintainer to be able to hand out maintainership without risking losing it herself can lead to more and more active maintainers, which is never a bad thing."

I agree. I feel the idea fosters a sense of security and keeps the founder and co-maintainers out of the swamp of paranoia while looking for help in maintaining (not just moderating) a community. Less worry=greater freedom and more social reward, generally.

I liked your additional thoughts. i.e.: not having to have a primary, if the community was so arranged. It could simply be an option.

Re: +1

[htpcl]

"the idea fosters a sense of security and keeps the founder and co-maintainers out of the swamp of paranoia while looking for help in maintaining (not just moderating) a community. Less worry=greater freedom and more social reward"

Those are exactly my feelings too.

[kayt_arminta]

+1

I have comms that I desperately need other moderators but I just don't trust anyone not to take all my hard work away from me. I'd love to have mods that couldn't kick me out.

+1

[kinvore]

I agree, this is a great idea

Re: +1

[marc_esadrian]

"I just don't think we should have the founder of a community automatically be given this rank."

The status of primary by default would (naturally, in my mind) go to the one who opened up the community in the first place. Why not?

"...it has too much potential for drama..."

Any more potential drama involved than what's going on now, where maintainers have equal power to oust all in the blink of an eye? Ok, maybe not blink of an eye, but click of a check box and a "save" button, that's for sure.

Re: +1

[kinvore]

Because it may be that someone was ousted as an admin for good reason. Be kinda unfair for someone who hasn't been an active part of a community to suddenly be given that power.

Basically this should be a tool to help admins find help without having to worry about making a mistake on who they invite. It shouldn't be a tool for someone to get vengeance over some power struggle.

+1

[htpcl]

I strongly support this motion. Frankly, such an option should've been added to LJ a long time ago. It adds more opportunities for the creator of a community to pass on much of their work to people they trust, without fearing of possible coups. I understand the concerns about the founder moving on and away without passing on his founder's status to another person, but that's only in a limited number of cases, whereas in most serious communities that are maintained, the tendency is of a far more "serious" approach to these matters. Still, not being able to completely trust anyone else but yourself is a normal thing, and it should be addressed in an adequate way with the implementation of the respective LJ instrumentary.

I say yes, additional security IS needed.