I have set up a new position called Site Manager, which I will hold along with 5 other members. In no particular order:
- VGR
- Esopo
- rdivilbiss
- RQuadling
- CrYpTiC_MauleR
The best way to describe the position is probably to show you the email I sent asking the members above if they'd be willing to hold it:
It's Matt from ERT. I'm writing to each of you to ask your help, if you're willing to give it. I would like to create a position on ERT.net called Site Manager, to be held by a few people, including me. The Site Managers' jobs would essentially be to help administrate the server, and they would be given 'root' (it's a shared host) CPanel/SSH access at the same level that I have (developers will be given access as well, though more restricted). This role would come with few obligations attached, only to not do anything illegal or malicious using the server, and not to use the power you have unfairly. Nevertheless, Site Managers would have the ability to fix problems, distribute resources, and otherwise help manage the server when they have the time and inclination, and the freedom to make decisions in doing so without always having to ask me. The Site Managers will also serve as advisors to the Governing Council (GC) on issues related to server resources and security.
Site Managers will not be forum admins necessarily, mainly because I think it's a waste of their talent. At present, Sandi is doing a great job and has the time to do it, so the issues of moderation can be left to her. If she needs help, someone sensible with fewer technical skills to offer can be elected by the community and will fill that role fine. So, it is really not a position of 'power'. However, the site Managers will have the authority to veto measures approved by the GC for security/server performance reasons, provided all Managers vote unanimously to do so, and present clear evidence for their concerns. Managers may also be elected to the GC themselves.
The position will not be an elected one, because I cannot afford to have people whom I do not already trust and have an existing relationship with to have such open access to a server for which I am legally responsible. It's also imperative that the Managers can work well together as a team, and I know that the people who I am asking are able to. I reserve the right to remove anyone from the position at any time, but I promise not to do so unless you have misused your access to the server (e.g. editing posts in the database secretly, using the server as a proxy for illegal activity, deleting users' files 'because you don't like them' etc...). If I were worried about any of you doing that, I would not be sending you this message. All of this is a long way of saying that unless you turn psychotic, the position is yours for as long as you choose to keep it.
I'm creating this position for a few reasons. First, I could use the help. I'll be starting school again soon and will have much less time to devote to ERT. Having some people who can competently help out with things is the only way to ensure the ERT will survive. Second, I'd like to have a fairly good safety net in case one of the admins (including myself) decides to pick up and leave. If there is already a well-established group of people caring for the site, it is less likely to fall apart if one of us walks away. Likewise, having more than just one or two people with full access helps prevent the possibility that the people who are in charge of the server resources (including me) will abuse their privileges.
If you would be interested in being a Site Manager, please either message me in the forum or reply to this email. If not, no problem, and thanks for reading ;-)
Matt
I've intentionally avoided words like admin for this title, because I don't want people to get the idea that it gives the members who hold it special power (maybe manager does anyway...oh well, read on...). It is a position set up largely to make the site *more* democratic rather than less. It will make things more efficient, and facilitate the distribution of resources. The activity of each Manager will be logged and documented as well as possible, and in this regard we will each serve to oversee one another and balance each other's "power." Think of Site Managers in the way you think of any unelected person (e.g. a doctor, police officer, bank manager) with the ability to abuse their power but no authority to do so, and the good judgement and disposition not to want to. As I noted in the above quote, this position has been appointed rather than elected because I have to trust the people who hold it: in the "real world" I'm responsible for what happens on the site.
I should mention that the list of people I've chosen for the task does not include everyone whom I would have trusted to do it. If I didn't ask you, please do not be offended or draw any conclusions regarding my opinion of your technical skills or trustworthiness. I chose the people I chose because I have been working with them already, because they already know each other, and because they frequent the site. The reason I chose only five people (which is itself perhaps too many) is because having more than that would start to make organizing our activities too difficult, and ultimately be counterproductive, taking away from the care of the site itself. In the future, Managers may step down and/or we may find we need more help, in which case I may ask others to volunteer for the position.
As a final note on this, I am giving up some power as a result of creating the new position: my right to veto things based on security concerns. Instead, as mentioned above, only a unanimous vote of the Site Managers to veto something for security reasons will be allowed. The only decisions I can veto alone will be those that create legal liability for me.
