What to do with the wall observer thread?

[arklan]

i'd think we'd all see it by noon. those who are active enough to atter, that is.

[1714006938]

1714006938

[1714006938]

1714006938

[1714006938]

1714006938

[1714006938]

1714006938

[1714006938]

1714006938

[bitserve]

Noon then. There's plenty of time for whomever cares about WO and wants to also step up.

I am not sure if it should be a one or a multiple-choice poll, nor if the results should be public during (current results) / after (who voted which choice) the election or not.

Unless someone has some strong opinion about this that he want to express, I guess we could leave that details up to Theymos.

[JayJuanGee]

Noon then. There's plenty of time for whomever cares about WO and wants to also step up.

I am not sure if it should be a one or a multiple-choice poll, nor if the results should be public during (current results) / after (who voted which choice) the election or not.

Unless someone has some strong opinion about this that he want to express, I guess we could leave that details up to Theymos.

I hope that we are mostly being non-controversial in these election-related suggestions, and maybe it is best that only non-candidates make these kinds of election process related suggestions? 

But, noon sounds good for a deadline for nominations, candidate statements(declarations) and anyone who may want to withdraw.. though it would be nice to have at least three candidates - and I don't really see a problem if more  people nominate themselves - even though it would likely end up diluting the vote count.

 I think that Theymos's  precedent of allowing multiple votes and publicizing the results (who voted for what) is acceptable, because it ends up being a personal decision whether to vote for more than  one or to put all of your vote on just one candidate...

 I understand that sometimes when voting for personal candidates, there might end up being posturing - and maybe in that regard, it could be better to keep the vote results private - even though keeping the vote private has drawbacks too (accusations of irregularities and favoritism, blah blah blah), so maybe just publishing the votes would be a better way forward and allowing for up to three votes would be good, too, even though in the end, only the highest vote getter would win... but having runner ups could help to inform whether the results may be used for other purposes in terms of administration of the thread or in case the first place falls through.

[marcus_of_augustus]

It's not technically possible to have more than one moderator of a thread, or to apply additional posting restrictions to the thread, or to prevent posts from counting in that thread, unless I create a new section for it.

I'm sure any voting would end up picking a decent candidate that would be in touch with thread culture, and if that person believes s/he needs help in the thread, s/he can elicit such help - even though it seems that there may be some inability to give actual powers to anyone beyond the owner of the thread, unless the owner of the thread shared his/her log-in credentials or a administrative "fake" account was created for such persons and the password only known by the elected moderator(s).

I am not sure if there should be concerns about getting stuck with a tyrant, because we would be voting for the person, but if there is a feeling to allow for a continued quasi-democratic process, we may want to agree to 1 year terms or something reasonable like that. 

... a succession plan is a worthwhile thought. Perhaps it could be TheDreadPirateRoberts model where the current mod chooses his successor and simply hands over the WO admin account keys to the next DreadPirateRoberts when they are over it?

In fact it would be kind of cool if the WO admin had an account name like DreadPirateRoberts or variant ...   ... but what should we call the monkey then?

[JayJuanGee]

It's not technically possible to have more than one moderator of a thread, or to apply additional posting restrictions to the thread, or to prevent posts from counting in that thread, unless I create a new section for it.

I'm sure any voting would end up picking a decent candidate that would be in touch with thread culture, and if that person believes s/he needs help in the thread, s/he can elicit such help - even though it seems that there may be some inability to give actual powers to anyone beyond the owner of the thread, unless the owner of the thread shared his/her log-in credentials or a administrative "fake" account was created for such persons and the password only known by the elected moderator(s).

I am not sure if there should be concerns about getting stuck with a tyrant, because we would be voting for the person, but if there is a feeling to allow for a continued quasi-democratic process, we may want to agree to 1 year terms or something reasonable like that.

... a succession plan is a worthwhile thought. Perhaps it could be TheDreadPirateRoberts model where the current mod chooses his successor and simply hands over the WO admin account keys to the next DreadPirateRoberts when they are over it?

In fact it would be kind of cool if the WO admin had an account name like DreadPirateRoberts or variant ...   ... but what should we call the monkey then?

I don't really disagree with the idea - but a problem in a quasi-anonymous forum is that an actual appointment process might not be as fair as just having either a periodic vote (such as every year) or just having theymos reassign the thread under his own discretion.  I imagine that Theymos is only flexible so long as we seem to be working matters out - but as soon as our decentralized bullshit turns into a bunch of in-fighting that resembles the scaling debate, then he probably experiences less healthy inclinations to capital punish the whole situation within the discretion of ownership.

By the way, Marcus, I thought that at one point your name was in the running?.. or maybe at some point you bowed out? It seemed at one point, someone made the argument that anyone who had started a competing WO thread had implicitly expressed interest in moderating the original WO thread?

[kurious]

It's not technically possible to have more than one moderator of a thread, or to apply additional posting restrictions to the thread, or to prevent posts from counting in that thread, unless I create a new section for it.

I'm sure any voting would end up picking a decent candidate that would be in touch with thread culture, and if that person believes s/he needs help in the thread, s/he can elicit such help - even though it seems that there may be some inability to give actual powers to anyone beyond the owner of the thread, unless the owner of the thread shared his/her log-in credentials or a administrative "fake" account was created for such persons and the password only known by the elected moderator(s).

I am not sure if there should be concerns about getting stuck with a tyrant, because we would be voting for the person, but if there is a feeling to allow for a continued quasi-democratic process, we may want to agree to 1 year terms or something reasonable like that.

... a succession plan is a worthwhile thought. Perhaps it could be TheDreadPirateRoberts model where the current mod chooses his successor and simply hands over the WO admin account keys to the next DreadPirateRoberts when they are over it?

In fact it would be kind of cool if the WO admin had an account name like DreadPirateRoberts or variant ...   ... but what should we call the monkey then?

I don't really disagree with the idea - but a problem in a quasi-anonymous forum is that an actual appointment process might not be as fair as just having either a periodic vote (such as every year) or just having theymos reassign the thread under his own discretion.  I imagine that Theymos is only flexible so long as we seem to be working matters out - but as soon as our decentralized bullshit turns into a bunch of in-fighting that resembles the scaling debate, then he probably experiences less healthy inclinations to capital punish the whole situation within the discretion of ownership.

By the way, Marcus, I thought that at one point your name was in the running?.. or maybe at some point you bowed out? It seemed at one point, someone made the argument that anyone who had started a competing WO thread had implicitly expressed interest in moderating the original WO thread?

He declared he was not available:

.....

NB: I'm not available to mod WO ... but I think you need to get it sorted out quickly, it's not that big of deal if you enforce those two simple rules above you could even put a drunk and his monkey in charge. 

And all the 'alt threads' were invited to put candidates forward - even rpietila's.

Those who wanted to throw their hats in have had ample chance.

Now it's time to narrow it down to one.

We must wait to see if Theymos will put up a new poll, unless he expects us to have a show of hands, of course.

[Lauda]

This looks about right - 5% leaders, 95% followers.  Do we need to wait longer for volunteers to come forward or can we open a voting thread now?  Maybe we need a voting thread on how long to wait?
Who's gonna jump the shark?

Which is another controversial thing, on which consensus isn't trivial. Optimally theymos would just put a hard deadline and say "make up your mind". Thanks for keeping a list!

A few guys have been posting potential candidates in this thread, who seem to be willing to run.  Some guys nominated themselves and some nominated others; however, of course it would seem to be a waste of energies if we were to include someone in the vote who has not confirmed that s/he is willing to run and carry out the duties and responsibilities.

I've seen the names due to xhomerx10. You are correct on the latter part, people who do not confirm that they want to or at least would be willing to, shouldn't be put on a list.

Maybe there could be a requirement, that you have to have posted in the WO thread at least 5 times or something like that?  Or maybe that you have to be at least a member? 

I was thinking more in the lines of senior member or even hero member IMO. Someone who hasn't been here for at least a year doesn't really fully understand: 1) The forum rules (unless he/she/it spent most of their time learning this). 2) The "WO thread etiquette".

Or maybe the thread owner could become permanent and only subject to the removal of Theymos and/or global mods?

What I was wondering about was whether theymos could give multiple people "ownership" of the thread (sorry if I have missed this post). This would make this somewhat easier for the person that ends up doing it.

Anyone think that a three member election committee might work of folks who are not running? 

That seems like a decent idea. Being allowed to vote for yourself is a double edged sword (if the votes are public that is).

Then we have to do a quickie vote on the election committee, possibly? 

That could work, but who votes on the election committee? It does not seem like we would be making progress.

[bitserve]

With all due respect, Lauda, are you trying to boycott the reopening of WO or are you really like that?

[Lauda]

With all due respect, Lauda, are you trying to boycott the reopening of WO or are you really like that?

I don't think I've voted (the poll ended before I did), but I am in favor of option one (and I think I have actually suggested it in the past, somewhere, to someone). What seems to be the issue?

[bitserve]

With all due respect, Lauda, are you trying to boycott the reopening of WO or are you really like that?

I don't think I've voted (the poll ended before I did), but I am in favor of option one (and I think I have actually suggested it in the past, somewhere, to someone). What seems to be the issue?

Maybe I was wrong in my feeling.

No, you didn't vote, but its your right not to do it, that's irrelevant.

The "issue" is that you expressed a lot of concerns that have already been addressed in this same thread. Some of them by theymos himself. Others are not that clear but there's no need to create a controversy over them unless there's some real justification.

An "election committee" does not vote/elect the winner but just supervise the process of the election, we would probably don't need that if we just hand the list of candidates to theymos and he runs the poll (making theymos some sort of election comitte himself). That's the better way to legitimize the process without unnecesary delays.

Unless Theymos states otherwise all users except newbies will vote, same as they did for current poll about the future of the thread. He has already stated that any restriction over who could post on the thread is not technically possible at the moment without creating a new section for it. So that's not on the table.

Also there's absolutely no problem in any candidate voting for himself (in fact it would be somewhat logical and advisable) or for anyone else for the lulz. Or not voting altogether.

He has also stated that we will have to chose ONE owner and that it is not technically possible to have additional moderators for the thread.

[Lauda]

Maybe I was wrong in my feeling.

You were. Whilst WO is often garbage due to lack of the moderation, some things are very nice to read (e.g. Jimbo's morning posts and BTM runs).

The "issue" is that you expressed a lot of concerns that have already been addressed in this same thread. Some of them by theymos himself. Others are not that clear but there's no need to create a controversy over them unless there's some real justification.

You see that I'm responding to a post that is somewhat old now, right? I didn't want to ignore it, regardless of what was posted afterwards.

Unless Theymos states otherwise all users except newbies will vote, same as they did for current poll about the future of the thread.

I disagree with the voting policy, but okay.

He has also stated that we will have to chose ONE owner and that it is not technically possible to have additional moderators for the thread.

"Technically not possible" with the existing SMF code you mean? No surprise there.
Okay, so when is this poll going to happen?

[Erkallys]

Okay, so when is this poll going to happen?

Some people proposed tomorrow at noon. theymos seems to be wanting for us to organise it all, so waiting for a confirmation might be lost time. Considering someday or another we will have to make it, that would be fine for me.

[empowering]

I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition , prone to erratic outbursts and have a proclivity for alcohol,  an obsession with BTC , and a completely bonkers life, I gots me a sense of humour- so I wouldn't be too heavy handed -  I don't give too much of a fuck - I can dedicate the time to it- as I am pretty immersed in Cryptocurrency already but also I don't care as long as its not he whose name we dare not mention "La......."

So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though.

Depends on if you want someone cranky or not tbh.

Boom. Done. There's my vote.

Edit: Please strike my name from the list. There are enough solid candidates now. Lightfoot and Yefi and Empowering are all excellent choices IMHO.

I am touched BlindMayorBitcorn.... as usual you are a gentleman and a scholar !

thanks

Lets get this wall observer back on the road !

[JayJuanGee]

Okay, so when is this poll going to happen?

Some people proposed tomorrow at noon. theymos seems to be wanting for us to organise it all, so waiting for a confirmation might be lost time. Considering someday or another we will have to make it, that would be fine for me.

It should not be too overly problematic to wait one more day, until 12 noon GMT on Wednesday (about 24 hours from now, as I type) for candidates to either bow in or bow out or to allow for any other clarifications of the process, if needed and sometimes members may not even log in for a day or two or even weeks, and we likely have already established a sufficient quorum and adequate airing of whatever WO thread related matters through some of the back and forth in this thread.  Furthermore, even if some members may be reasonably anxious to re-open the WO thread, it does not seem that there is really any bad faith or impracticality to allowing one more day for any clarifications concerning candidates or process, as we already mentioned a few times in this thread.

Theymos has not yet agreed to run the actual poll that we are now proposing with the latest list of candidates, but it would not necessarily be a deal-breaker if Theymos were not to chime in before noon tomorrow, even though personally, it seems better for him or another moderator to run the poll, and to decide any potentially controversial matters about how the poll is run, number of votes members get, who are the candidates, how did the vote come out, whether to publish the results and any other material matters - such as answering any questions about what is technically feasible or even administratively within his preferences.  

If Theymos does not run the poll, then the next best option would be someone who is actively posting in this conversation but is not running for the "owner" position to link a polling thread to this thread and to run the election, and to give reasonable time to vote, such as 4 days, as was proposed earlier, and attempt to be as transparent and reasonable about whatever polling process is followed in order that the results or the process is not controverted.  

Maybe if there were a tie in the vote outcome (which does not seem too likely, if the poll were run in a way similar to the last poll in which members have the ability to change their vote prior to the counting of the votes), then there could be a runoff vote that takes place in a much shorter period of time, such as 24 hours of open polls for that run-off part?

I may have been the first person to directly mentioned the possibility of an election committee, but it seems whatever process we have been describing in this thread may be sufficient and even a suggestion that Theymos runs such a proposed poll would both speed up any timeline and remove whatever areas are currently potentially left to be controverted, making an election committee unnecessary - except maybe in the future if theymos wants to make a term or a re-election rather than just making the ownership of the thread permanent without any re-elections unless the new owner would become incapacitated, unavailable or in some other way problematic for the forum, including complaints from members.  

[xhomerx10]

 Current list of candidates for moderator of the Wall Observer thread:

lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

Erkallys- "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

infofront- "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread."

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one.

empowering - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."


 Anyone wishing to be added or removed from the list of candidates, please indicate your intention in this thread before July 5^th @ 1159hours GMT

[aztecminer]

hey everyone.. where is the new thread ??

[deepcolderwallet]

hey everyone.. where is the new thread ??

So far the best one is this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1993010

[xhomerx10]

Current list of candidates for moderator of the Wall Observer thread:

lightfoot - "I would go with a largely hands-off option, no directly blasting other people, no posting marketing crap, simple stuff"

arklan - "if mods are needed, i have the time to do it"

Erkallys- "I candidate if this is needed. At least I have no hatred toward me as well as any fanboy." - "I would not be too strict on moderation, and I am available all day long."

infofront- "I'm not a prolific poster, or well known personality, but I'd volunteer to help moderate. I started the "unmoderated" wall observer thread because I believe in the laissez-faire nature of Adam's thread."

Lauda - "I could create one, and would if someone were to get something like ChartBuddy running again." <-- from another thread but related to this one.

empowering - "I probably have the necessary erratic mental health condition..." "...So I guess I will throw my hat in - happy to do it, not fussed either though."


 Anyone wishing to be added or removed from the list of candidates, please indicate your intention in this thread before July 5^th @ 1159hours GMT

 Hearing neither objections nor new submissions, polling begins today.

Voting thread is here: edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004215

Let's use my poll instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004227.0

[theymos]

Voting thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004215

Let's use my poll instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2004227.0