Thanks for repairing Remark (a), Hayford ... it urgently needed it. -- 15:32, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
Johan, we have not yet appointed an AM or nominated a candidate. Perhaps we should do it now. -- 14:54,
Prada Outlet, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
-- 14:28, 23 July 2011 (GMT)
Johan, I think I understand what you intend with your suggestion of personal accounts, but I do not agree. AMs should not have official but private contacts -- official contacts should be open to all AMs. Replies to a specific AM can be identified by the sender (e.g., by changing the To: field, in the Subject: field, or on the first line). Really private contacts could (and should) happen via the AMs private mail. -- 14:49, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
Thanks. 16:15, 22 July 2011 (GMT)
-- 22:16, 23 July 2011 (GMT)
All: The requirement to sign posts with one's real name is very important here. Otherwise, in a situation with more than one AM, it might be impossible to know
which AM made a certain edit. This would break the whole idea of being accountable for one's own actions (i.e., edits). Given that we have just one AM, this is indeed a minor concern. Anthony etc.: Maybe I'm the only one who's worked with email account administration? I'll explain what I mean in more detail, but please note that
I do not think this is necessary in our current situation. Let's say sometime in the future, we have three AMs: Mr. Quick, mr. Slick, and mr. Thick. Then we would set up accounts as follows: This way,
Christian Louboutin Discount, someone from outside could contact just mr. Thick (in private), or contact all AMs at once. Like I said, with our current situation of just one AM, this is not necessary. I just want to make sure I'm understood. 12:05,
Louboutin Boots, 24 July 2011 (GMT) Anthony: I disagree, strongly. The AM account should
not be used by anyone except the AM. Keeping track of
who did
what would be made near-impossible if several people started hiding behind a common account name. This account is a way for Joe to separate official work from casual contribution, nothing else. In fact, I think it's important that none of us have the passwords to that account. 14:08, 24 July 2011 (GMT) Peter: I think we basically agree --- it doesn't matter if the personal accounts are hosted at Citizendium, or at Google, Hotmail... The principle is still the same. But it's not strictly relevant to this motion anyway. 21:43, 24 July 2011 (GMT) Re
Remark (2): Very well. But it should only be used in exceptional cases, and the Secretary would have to sign with his own name as well. Anonymity (for decision-makers) is the enemy of Accountability, and Transparence. 21:40, 24 July 2011 (GMT) Hayford Peirce
approve@citizendium.org? 19:06, 23 July 2011 (GMT)
Peter: I agree with the motion, but I dislike cz_am@citizendium.org for the address. How would you feel about choosing a longer, more descriptive name like approval_manager@citizendium.org or just approvals@citizendium.org? We could also make two accounts: give Joe a personal account quick@citizendium.org and let all mail arriving at approval_manager@citizendium.org be forwarded there. That solution would be consistent with planning for two or more managers in the future (allowing private communication to an individual AM as well as general communication to them both).
23:58, 23 July 2011 (GMT)
In order to assist the Approval Managers in their work,
Johan, I think you misunderstood why I added a remark concerning the EC secretary.Remember that, according to our motion (C.1), the EC secretary is sort of "reserve AM" in case "no AM is available". Therefore, this is not meant to cover "exceptional cases" but to provide him with the means to fulfil his duties -- as an AM.Thus mentioning him only merits a remark and not a separate number. -- 22:34, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
I have some reservations concerning the CZ User account "Approval Manager". I think a page in the CZ: namespace and its talk pagewould serve the same purpose and would be simpler: No separate login, no passwords to share, no opportunity to forget signing with a name. Instead of signing as AM and adding one's name this would need signing as usual but addint "Approval Manager".
However, I see that there are also arguments in favour fo a user AM, mainly that it automatically documents the Approval process.We can therefore try out how it works.This is an example of a technical issue -- it can easily be revised if it indeed should turn out to be impractical.
b. Since, by C.1, the Secretary of the EC may have to act as reserve Approval Manager, he must be given access to both accounts.
@Anthony -- I agree with Johan: no one except the actual Account Manager(s) should have access to this account -- if it's an open account, then why bother to make it? 15:12, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
If things prove unwieldly, let's revisit.
From CZ_Editorial_Council :
PASSED as Decision
a. Instead of creating a new user, the existing CZ user
Approvals Manager may be renamed.
Anthony Sebastian
Peter Schmitt
//
Shouldn't the proposal provide access to the Approval Managers Account by members of the EC, to comment and respond to comments, make suggestions, head off impasses when possible? If so, shouldn't the proposal include text to that effect? 19:18, 23 July 2011 (GMT)
Though I accept the motion as it is proposed, I want to explain, just for the record, why I do not like a shared "User:Approval Manager". As Johan states, it is important that the AM always adds his name. As long as there is only one AM a forgotten signature is not a problem. However, it may become a problem if more than one AM are active: Forgetting to add "Approval Manager" to an AM's signature would still remain harmless, while forgetting to add one's real name to the AM signature may cause problems.-- 15:24, 25 July 2011 (GMT)
Or perhaps structure approvals on a base of a dedicated wiki, something like the way EC gets its work done, in conjunction with the Secretary's email distribution list to EC members. Ensures a proper closed-open session balance.
The actual address of the account is not important. I chose a short one (like that of the EC) only in order to avoid repetition."approval" is in the middle between long and short ...
:&,dash;).
I think a longer, descriptive title is best, but I'll forego that if necessary; honestly, let's not have stumbling blocks over the small stuff.
People might forget to sign, it's true, but they can go back and add a note (I did that - duh - sorry) when they remember.
I like Johan's idea of private emails to AM Joe Quick, forwarded from a parent approvals-email. Seems like complication might arise, though, if we have three Approvals Managers, each with their own private email. They have work as a group sometimes, best done with a common communication venue.
2. The Editorial Council asks the Constables to create a Citizendium user
Approval Manager. The account shall be used by Approval Managers when communicating in their official capacity.
Step 1: Call for sponsors Step 2: Discussion period Step 3: Voting period Accept Reject Abstain Comment Text of suggestions Aleta Curry
++++++++++
@All -- let's not forget, while proposing that the EC Secretary also has access to this account, that the Sec. may not *want* it. Or may not feel himself competent to make the decisions that the AM is supposed to be making. Just a thought. 22:27, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
I fully agree with using an official AM mail account but do not agree with additional accounts for individual AMs. As Anthony, I think that this would add too much complication. However, of course all AMs should have access to this mail folder(similat to the Constables mail) as well as, in addition, the Secretary of the EC.
Remarks@Johan -- sound proposals. I myself like long addresses that precisely describe what is going on. 18:04, 22 July 2011 (GMT)
Ro Thorpe
@Peter -- I understand your concerns but think that these are truly minor, completely theoretical problems. If they DO crop up, they can be corrected. 16:54, 25 July 2011 (GMT)
1. The Editorial Council asks the Technical Staff to set up a Citizendium email account with address approval-manager@citizendium.org and personal name
Citizendium Approval Manager. This account is to be used by the Approval Managers in their official capacity, such as when contacting external referees.
We could also just say that he is to be given a mail account, "the name of which to be decided later".
Special Resources for Approval Managers
a. In order to to identify themselves, users of this account are required to add their name to both the standard signature and the edit summary. This applies even if there is but a single Approval Manager.
b. The User page and its subpages shall identify present and past Approval Managers as well as their terms of office, and be used to document their work. The talk pages may be used to contact Approval Managers.
Anthony, there is no need for EC members (except the Secretary) to log in as AMbecause all Citizens can comment the approval process on the talk page and (if justified) on the Approval page.Moreover,
Christian Louboutin boutique, there is no need for access to the mail account because it should only be used to contact potential referees,all pertinent information has to be placed on the wiki, and all discussions should take place there.(Therefore a separate wiki is not needed, either.)
I'm in favour of giving the Approvals Manager(s) the tools s/he/they need, including an account, at least on a trial basis.
Signing with one's is important even when there is only one AM: First, the Secretary of the EC may have to act as his replacement, and, second, without such a signature it would be inconvenient (or even difficult) to identify past AMs. -- 14:41, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
@Anthony -- I think that the Talk or Discussion page of the article in question (the article that is up for possible approval) is where comments by other people should be made. If it's a *really* personal comment ("Joe Blow, the guy who is saying that he is an expert in this particular field, is actually employed by the company that the article is about and is trying to use this article as personal promotion."), then it can be made by personal email to the AM -- after all, his identity is not a secret. 15:16, 24 July 2011 (GMT)
Johan F,
Christian Louboutin Discount?rberg
Proposed by 00:27, 21 July 2011 (GMT)
(48 hours): 14:54, 21 July 2011 (GMT)
(48 hours): 15:05, 23 July 2011 (GMT)
(36 hours): 22:54, 26 July 2011 (GMT)
Important is only the actual name of the account -- Citzendium (or CZ) Approval Manager -- supplied in the From: field and displayed in the index listings.
相关的主题文章：
http://blogs.princeton.edu/englib/2008/10/library_workshop_searching_and_analyzing_results_i.html#comments http://www.jsjhelp.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=82436 http://yoko14145.com/blogs/2007/07/post-70.html#comments
Home
Search
Login
Register