For every official mailing list of the project, a list manager may be appointed who moderates the list subscribers in the case of excessive off-topic posting or other abuse issues. Unless explicitly resolved otherwise, the owner of the technical resources used to run the list is the list manager.
(Proposed on 2004-12-22 by Wayne Schlitt and Chuck Mead. Passed by majority vote.)
<csm-laptop> someone (/me forgets who) wanted to talk about empowering greg
connor
<csm-laptop> it might even have been me
<csm-laptop> I think what we have, in terms of mailing list management for the
project itself is a fait accompli
<Julian> "fait accompli"?
<grumpy> you want a proposal to official annoint gconnor as the
spf-discuss listmom?
<csm-laptop> greg is our MLM but I think we should empower him directly with a
council approved motion
<csm-laptop> yes
<MarkK> no problems with that; though he is already, de facto, fulfilling
the part
<csm-laptop> he does a great job
<Julian> So someone make a motion, please.
* Julian won't. :)
<csm-laptop> MarkK: thus I have referred to it as a fait accompli :-)
<MarkK> thus you did :)
<csm-laptop> grumpy: make motion?
* csm-laptop waits... tappity, tappity, tappity
<csm-laptop> :-)
<grumpy> Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss
mailing list and to select, with final approval of council,
additional moderators.
* csm-laptop suggests a modification
<MarkK> does that mean Meng is out of it?
<csm-laptop> strike: with final approval of council
<Julian> MarkK: Good point. :)
<MarkK> I though greg was co-list owner
<grumpy> (I think something like this should be done for Scott Kitterman
for spf-help)
* csm-laptop trusts gconnor to select moderators without council
intervention or oversight
<grumpy> csm-laptop: are you saying you don't think the council should
have any oversight, or that such wording is unneccessary?
<csm-laptop> the latter
<csm-laptop> if we don't like something we can *ALWAYS* undo it... thus the
wording is unnecessary
<Julian> So what's the proposed wording?
<MarkK> lets keep the wording in; it is no PR, and it helps clarify
things later
<csm-laptop> Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss
mailing list and to select additional moderators
<grumpy> What about something like "the council will be final arbitrator
of all disputes and moderator selections"
<csm-laptop> grumpy: unnecessary... we will always be that
<Julian> "all disputes"? Huh? That gotta be at least "all mailing list
related disputes" or something...
<grumpy> I think we need to be clear on that point
<csm-laptop> "we" means "this body"
<MarkK> I like to have that addition in; it hurts nothing to have it in,
either
<grumpy> Julian: yeah, mailing list disputes.
* csm-laptop removes his objection but hates redundancy
<Julian> Also, what about Meng as mailing list owner/moderator?
<csm-laptop> Julian: Meng owns the resource... the council has no input there
<grumpy> Yeah, let's add Meng in there
<Julian> csm: Redundant resolutions are far, far better than unprecise
ones.
<grumpy> Julian: agreed, especially since we are not talking about 50 page
documents
<csm-laptop> Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss
mailing list and to select, with final approval of council,
additional moderators
<MarkK> like I said, this in not a press release where brevity is
warranted; for resolutions, we far better err on the side of
caution and clarity
<csm-laptop> the chair calls the previous question
<csm-laptop> is there a second?
<MarkK> 15:57 yes
<csm-laptop> 15:57 yes
<MarkK> (sorry; 14:57u: yes)
<grumpy> 15:57 yes
<Julian> Huh? Who has called for votes?
<csm-laptop> <csm-laptop> the chair calls the previous question
<csm-laptop> <csm-laptop> is there a second?
<MarkK> csm
<Julian> Alright, MarkK's second was implicit, I guess.
<grumpy> MarkK:
<Julian> 15:57 abstain
<csm-laptop> no quorum
...
<csm-laptop> the chair refers the council to the previous motion wherein he
called a "no quorum"
<csm-laptop> the motion was incorrectly referred to as 1557u
<csm-laptop> we have to back up and reconsider 1557u which was incorrectly
labeled
<csm-laptop> Motion: The council authorizes Greg Connor to run the spf-discuss
mailing list and to select, with final approval of council,
additional moderators
<csm-laptop> and it is now... uhm... 1514u I believe
<grumpy> 1514 seconded
<MarkK> 1514u: yes
<Julian> 1514u: abstain
<grumpy> 1514u yes
<csm-laptop> 1514u: yes
<csm-laptop> so ordered
...
<grumpy> second new business: Do the same thing for Scott Kittermann on
spf-help as gconnor
<MarkK> good thinking
<csm-laptop> motion: the council asks Scott Kittermann to listmom spf-help
<Julian> "listmom"? (Yes, I know what the word probably means.)
<grumpy> Erh, Kitterman, not Kittermann
<csm-laptop> Julian: you have my permission to spell it out...
<csm-laptop> I am just trying to move things along quickly
<csm-laptop> second?
<grumpy> 1544u seconded
<csm-laptop> votes?
<MarkK> 1544u: yes
<Julian> 1545u: yes
<grumpy> 1544u yes
<csm-laptop> so ordered
<Julian> (Ooops, that's 1544u, of course.)