Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05)/Pt II

This is a continuation of AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

[15:00]  If they're former coordinators and arbitrators, they've shown merit. [15:00]  ic [15:00]  The coordinator can... I can see either situation working [15:00]  as a members advocate? [15:00] I think that the role of the Coordinator is something that the members should decide, as they have in the past. [15:00] What about my proposal that the elected member with the most votes becomes the new coordinator? [15:01]  I dodn't know we had members of the arbitration commitee as members advocates? [15:01]  former or otherwise? [15:01] No, actually former members of the arbitration commmitee are allowed to become members. [15:01]  but have they? [15:01]  not to my knowledge.... [15:01] I was also thinking that as Coordinator that I should mention this to them. [15:01]  I don't like that so much. [15:02]  I think the Coordinator should be responsible to the committee; thus being elected from them. [15:02] Like former judges they can be very good advocates. [15:02]  I don't like most of what I've heard, sorry to say [15:02]  I could see it working, it's just not my preferred. [15:02]  if it was put up for referendum, all in one, I'd be against it [15:02] Sam, do you think we should have a committee at all? [15:02]  no [15:02]  Then how should we do it? [15:02]  I oppose commitees [15:02] <Anthere> Wally_AMA, I'll think more about it [15:02] <Sam_Spade> vigorously [15:02] <Anthere> but I read what you all write [15:03] <Metasquares> Why? Are you afraid that the presence of a committee will slow the AMA's decision making down? [15:03] <Sam_Spade> yes [15:03] <Sam_Spade> greatly [15:03] <Wally_AMA> I am happy to type up a full proposal of what I might see, if that might help all concerned? [15:03] <Sam_Spade> mine especially [15:03] We are going to be discussing this for a while Anthere, it will be posted on the AMA pages so we are hoping to get more member input after today. [15:03] <Sam_Spade> ;) [15:03] I think we need to discuss the need of a commmittee more, I am interested in hearing sam's objections to that. [15:03] <Sam_Spade> already your asking I keep track of what I'm doing as an advocate, which takes up at least as much time as advocating [15:04] Sam, I was just looking for a short general paragraph, that is all, not some kind of complex time sheet. [15:04] <Sam_Spade> but its an example [15:04] Did you look at what other people wrote on the Survey page? [15:04] <Sam_Spade> of the sort of things which come from commitees [15:04] I don't think it took them very long to write that. [15:05] <Sam_Spade> people who can, do [15:05] <Sam_Spade> yeah, I'm happy to do that [15:05] Can I make a statement as the present Coordinator? [15:05] <Sam_Spade> but strict records are needed [15:05] <Sam_Spade> we need to have a division of labour [15:05] <Sam_Spade> sure [15:06] <Sam_Spade> * [15:06] I posted messages on all 29 members talk pages a week ago, and only eight responded (including Anthere who put a suggestion on my talk page). [15:06] I think this shows the level of activity, several of those people that did respond have hardly done any advocacy. [15:07] <Wally_AMA> Sam, I respectfully disagree. [15:07] As Coordinator it is a bit frustrating to put all the onus on that position for communicating with AMA members. [15:07] <Wally_AMA> Asking for a brief list of what a person has been involved in is not the sort of crushing bureaucracy you seem to portray. [15:07] <Sam_Spade> I have at least one arbitration case going, and just closed 2 [15:07] <Sam_Spade> what have you been doing? [15:07] It would be better if there were more than one person then the Coordinator could work with someone else and discuss AMA activities. [15:08] <Sam_Spade> members advocate-wise? [15:08] <Metasquares> I agree with alex756 here; this can be handled more efficiently by many people than just one [15:08] I am not talking about intererence with individual advocates cases, I think that advocates need to be independent of the AMA in their activities. [15:08] That is why I wonder why so many people mentioned "unofficial" advocacy. [15:08] <Sam_Spade> keeping track of what I do here would double my work [15:09] It seems to me that whenever you advocate that is "official". There is no stamp that the AMA puts on an advocate's activities. [15:09] <Metasquares> So all advocacy is to be considered official, even if it isn't conducted through the AMA requests for assistance? [15:09] <Sam_Spade> I favor unofficial advocacy [15:09] And I don't think we need to start setting up our own disciplinary system, no one has complained yet. [15:09] I don't know anything about this "unoffocial" advocacy. All advocacy is advocacy. [15:10] Show me where we ever discussed "official" vs. "unofficial" advocacy. [15:10] <Wally_AMA> Where disciplinary systems are concerned I figure if it comes up the committee just handles it. [15:10] <Sam_Spade> nigel mentioned it [15:10] <Wally_AMA> No formal system is desirable. [15:10] The idea for requests for assistance is for people who could not find advocates directly. [15:10] <Metasquares> Ah [15:10] <Sam_Spade> people copntact me directly [15:10] <Sam_Spade> severel a week [15:10] That is what is says on the main page and why people have member statements. [15:11] <Sam_Spade> any of you can contact me [15:11] <Sam_Spade> if I don't want to jelp, I won't [15:11] <Sam_Spade> but I usually do [15:11] Maybe we should make you coordinator then Sam, and you could refer some of your contacts to other advocates who haven't had much chance to help people. [15:11] <Sam_Spade> and I don't even have a members statement ;) [15:11] <Sam_Spade> hehe [15:12] <Sam_Spade> I oppose coordinators, and commitees [15:12] <Sam_Spade> I just happen to like you, alex [15:12] <Sam_Spade> I agree that messaging every last one of us shouldn't be your job [15:12] I think that the Coordinator Sam should serve an organizational function, not coordinate advocacy. [15:12] <Sam_Spade> that should be somebodies job, maybe a bots job, but not yours [15:13] <Wally_AMA> A bot is not a person. [15:13] <Sam_Spade> we need division of labor [15:13] Some of the members have suggested that we need a higher profile, more activity. I think discussion is good. [15:13] <Sam_Spade> profile is easy [15:13] <Sam_Spade> I could advertise you if I wanted [15:13] <Sam_Spade> in my introductions to new members [15:13] <Sam_Spade> or my signature [15:13] <Sam_Spade> or main page [15:13] <Sam_Spade> we could all do that [15:13] <Sam_Spade> but we don't [15:14] <Anthere> sorry, must go [15:14] <Anthere> bye all [15:14] Yes, we are still a young association. [15:14] By anthere, hope you get a chance to read the logs. [15:14] <Sam_Spade> goodbye anthere [15:14] <Anthere> yes, please publish them [15:14] And comment later. [15:14] <Anthere> or send them by mail [15:14] <Metasquares> Bye [15:14] They will be published, like the last one. [15:14] <Anthere> will do, I promise, today is very very busy for me [15:14] <Anthere> good thanks [15:15] <Wally_AMA> We don't need advertisement. [15:15] <Wally_AMA> We're not selling shoes. [15:15] <Sam_Spade> we need incentivce [15:15] <Wally_AMA> Hence what the committee offers. [15:15] <Sam_Spade> thats why people do things [15:15] I think what we need is more support of AMA members. [15:15] <Wally_AMA> A chance to have a bigger part, to move up. [15:15] <Wally_AMA> Something a pithy title cannot offer. [15:15] <Sam_Spade> we need positions of responsibility based on merir, not seniority or elections [15:15] The role of being a commmittee member should be for people willing to take on responsibility, not "move up." [15:16] <Sam_Spade> division of labour [15:16] <Wally_AMA> To this I agree; however realism and idealism must be reconciled. [15:16] <Wally_AMA> And who, Sam, decides who is worthy of "moving up"? [15:16] <Sam_Spade> obvious merit [15:16] <Wally_AMA> Who decides who has "merit"? [15:16] <Wally_AMA> No such thing. [15:16] <Sam_Spade> success [15:16] They should be willing to spend time thinking about how the AMA can be improved. How advocates can be helped, through training, meetings that discuss specific topics, etc. [15:16] <Sam_Spade> Bull [15:16] <Wally_AMA> What you're essentially asking for is approval by approbation. [15:16] <Sam_Spade> very few of us do anything [15:16] <Wally_AMA> Aka an election. [15:17] <Sam_Spade> at all [15:17] <Sam_Spade> not even talking on the AMA discussion page [15:17] <Wally_AMA> But those that do are not qualified dictators by the fact. [15:17] I think we can have an election Sam, that is how this meeting thing got started, no? [15:17] <Sam_Spade> a handful come here, or have advocated for anybody [15:17] I noticed that the only person who put something on the page for topics to discuss at this meeting was a non AMA member. [15:18] <Sam_Spade> hehehehe [15:18] <Sam_Spade> thats probably insightful, alex [15:18] Did anyone read his suggestion? [15:18] <Sam_Spade> no [15:18] <Metasquares> Second meeting page or first? [15:18] See: AMA Meeting (suggested topics) [15:18] * Sam_Spade is now known as Sam_Spadeaway [15:19] Actually he/her also joined the AMA [15:20] The suggestion was to put a link on each page to AMA policies?! [15:20] <Wally_AMA> I think this is partly because we have so many pages. [15:20] I guess the suggestion was that people really don't know much about our group. [15:20] <Wally_AMA> No one knows where to leave a suggestion. [15:21] I find that strange, because I have a Coodinator's page, and there have been a few suggestions, but not much. [15:21] * Sam_Spadeaway is now known as Jack [15:21] AMA Coordinator [15:22] Wally, I noticed that you did leave a question there on Dec. 31. [15:22] * Jack is now known as Sam_Spade [15:22] And there was one other public inquiry about a "Guide to Mediation". [15:23] I also did get a few emails directly that were confidential inquiries of people that did not want to publish their questions on the wiki. [15:23] I think the problem is ongoing communication between members. [15:23] <Sam_Spade> thats why were here, eh? [15:24] <Sam_Spade> its not like you guys call me alot [15:24] And as present Coordinator I will support anything within reason that helps that, because I can see that our organiation is valuable, even it does not seem to be very "busy". [15:24] <Sam_Spade> not even messages on my talk page *sob* [15:24] Sam, that is what I am talking about, AMA members should be the ones trying to communicate with the Coordinator, not the other way around. [15:24] <Sam_Spade> I agree [15:24] <Sam_Spade> you should not be the SPAM guy [15:25] LOL. [15:25] <Wally_AMA> It's not "spam". [15:25] <Sam_Spade> but who has any place complaining? [15:25] <Sam_Spade> what are we doing? [15:25] <Sam_Spade> one guy resigned, because he was too busy [15:25] <Sam_Spade> I think most are indifferent [15:25] Hey at least I'm not the guy who put the dual licensing notice on all the user talk pages, egh? [15:25] <Sam_Spade> do you know how many wiki clubs I'm in? [15:26] <Sam_Spade> yeah, I'm not complaining, alex [15:26] <Sam_Spade> I like your notes [15:26] That is why we might have a commmittee Sam, it might at least get a few people involved more. [15:26] <Sam_Spade> but I understand its boring sending them [15:26] <Sam_Spade> I donno alex... [15:26] Actually I have it down to a science now, it doesn't take that long. [15:26] <Sam_Spade> giving a position to people who arn't already busy.... [15:26] <Sam_Spade> idle hands do the devils work... [15:27] <Sam_Spade> I don't trust commitees [15:27] What about people without experience learning from those who have more? Isn't that important? [15:27] <Sam_Spade> if they have experiences [15:27] <Sam_Spade> it may be [15:27] <Wally_AMA> Sam, if you don't trust committees offer another workable solution. [15:28] So, someone like you, Sam, has an obligation to share your expertise with other AMA members, to help them become better advocates. Don't you agree? [15:28] <Sam_Spade> but people w no real experience bossing about those who are busy advocating is what I envision when I hear "commitee" [15:28] <Sam_Spade> I agree, alex [15:28] <Sam_Spade> and you've heard my ideas, wally [15:28] <Sam_Spade> I can repeat, if needed [15:28] <Sam_Spade> I think we need incentive [15:28] That is why you would want there to be an election, Sam. The people who are running would have to make a statement about their qualifications to help run the AMA activities. [15:28] <Sam_Spade> and leadership by the successful, and the rigorous [15:29] <Sam_Spade> not the electable, or the most senior [15:29] What better way to recognize merit than an election? [15:29] <Sam_Spade> every way [15:29] How would you make the choice of the most successful and most rigorous sam? I'd like to hear your suggestions. [15:29] * Sam_Spadeaway has joined #AMA [15:30] <Sam_Spadeaway> sorry, fell offline [15:30] <Metasquares> Would you base your decision strictly on the number of people that an Advocate has helped? [15:30] <Sam_Spadeaway> no [15:30] <Wally_AMA> What base is there? [15:30] <Metasquares> I think that an election is a good way to recognize merit, at least in the community's eyes [15:30] <Wally_AMA> His criteria are completely subjective. [15:30] <Sam_Spadeaway> there are many obvious methods of measurement [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> I would accept any that was feasable [15:31] <Metasquares> An election is subjective, but there aren't any objective ways to measure something like merit, which is inherently subjective [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> bah [15:31] Please tell us your suggestions, not that they are obvious. [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> ok [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> number of cases [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> number of successful cases [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> numbner of happy customers [15:31] What if someone takes on a lot of cases and is not successful? [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> those 3 are good [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> all 3 are good [15:31] <Sam_Spadeaway> especially in combination [15:32] <Sam_Spadeaway> if 100% of comments from clients are bad... [15:32] What is success? If an advocate is advocating for someone who has an important point, then that case may not lead to a quick or easy resolution. [15:32] <Sam_Spadeaway> thats pretty bad ;) [15:32] <Sam_Spadeaway> often it doesn;t [15:32] <Sam_Spadeaway> or he tries hard, and faiels [15:32] <Sam_Spadeaway> thats why all 3 are good [15:32] No one has made any comments about any advocate to the AMA, so everyone is on equal footing as far as the Coordinator is concerned. [15:32] <Sam_Spadeaway> :D [15:33] * Anthere has quit IRC (Connection timed out) [15:33] What if the people who are most satisfied do not speak of their satisfaction? [15:33] <Sam_Spadeaway> offer me incentove, and you'll have a stack of compliments about me, I'll see to that ;) [15:33] Anyway, I don't know what that has to do with sitting on a commmitee that organizes workshops or puts together written materials about advocacy. [15:34] <Wally_AMA> To me, if a person doesn't speak of their advocacy, it is more likely successful. [15:34] They can also ask someone to help them who has a lot of experience. [15:34] <Wally_AMA> People squawk when things go wrong, not right. [15:34] <Sam_Spadeaway> This all sounds like a commitee! [15:34] I think you want us to give out some kind of "Metal" or "Badge" of honor. [15:34] <Sam_Spadeaway> aieeeeeee! ;) [15:35] <Sam_Spadeaway> I think we need to find out who knows what they are talking about [15:35] I have no problem with awarding an "advocate of the year" award, but that should not be confused with people who are willing to help out with organization. [15:35] <Sam_Spadeaway> and then pay attention to them [15:35] <Wally_AMA> I'm going to go AFK for a bit, all, and start working up my proposal for the reorganization. [15:35] <Metasquares> Sam: Well what would you expect at a meeting if not a discussion between members about where the association is going? [15:35] The people on the commmittee are not going to be telling anyone what to do. [15:35] <Wally_AMA> I'll be checking back in periodically; if we're going to schedule a time for voting on new proposals, please wait for me if possible. [15:36] They would be organizing a conference, and experienced advocates like you, sam can make a presentation. [15:36] <Wally_AMA> If anybody has any other thoughts while I'm off, please PM me. [15:36] <Sam_Spadeaway> that sounds great, alex [15:36] <Sam_Spadeaway> but I expect something sinister [15:36] * Wally_AMA is now known as Wally|AMAFK [15:36] <Sam_Spadeaway> something that always seems to happen w commitees [15:36] I don't see how someone serving on a commmittee is going be telling anyone what to do. That is like Jimbo telling people what articles they could write on Wikipedia. That is never going to happen. [15:36] <Sam_Spadeaway> entropy [15:37] <Sam_Spadeaway> beurocracy [15:37] <Wally|AMAFK> The committee, to my mind, would only give an order in an extreme circumstance. [15:37] <Sam_Spadeaway> lack of impetus [15:37] <Wally|AMAFK> I firmly hold to the belief of General George S. Patton - want people to get something done, tell them what to do and they'll surprise you with their ingenuity. [15:37] <Sam_Spadeaway> and worst of all, some fathead commitee long out of the loop making a descision in an extreme case ;) [15:37] Well, then we can have an open membership committee, open meetings and then whomever comes to the meetings can be deputized by the Coordinator to help do something for the AMA. [15:38] <Wally|AMAFK> We'd be here only to say what to do, not how to do it. [15:38] <Wally|AMAFK> I disagree with that. [15:38] <Sam_Spadeaway> oh.... [15:38] <Wally|AMAFK> We need a permanent, standing body for our group. [15:38] <Metasquares> Maybe the committee should publish some sort of periodical report on what it's accomplished, to ensure that it stays current on matters [15:38] <Wally|AMAFK> Not an ad hoc thing. [15:38] <Wally|AMAFK> The committee will be exactly as Sam says if we have it open and meeting at god-knows-what times. [15:39] I think if we have a committee that always has a position open (rolling election) and meetings are open to all members that could be very responsive. [15:40] <Sam_Spadeaway> mahoritocracy is bad [15:40] <Sam_Spadeaway> especially when few vote [15:40] <Sam_Spadeaway> which is our circumstance [15:40] But this is a membership organization, if the members don't particpate, why should they complain? [15:41] <Sam_Spadeaway> what if they do both, like me? [15:41] <Sam_Spadeaway> ;) [15:41] They have a chance to come to the meetings and to post comments on the talk pages, if they do not, what is the problem? [15:41] <Sam_Spadeaway> I think every one of those names is a resource to us [15:41] <Wally|AMAFK> I don't like the idea of rolling elections so that there's always an election coming up. [15:41] I am happy you are speaking up Sam, because I beleive that only through discussion can we get somewhere. [15:41] <Sam_Spadeaway> potential advocates [15:41] <Wally|AMAFK> As for open participation, no objections in principle. [15:42] <Sam_Spadeaway> if we can motivate them, we can do something [15:42] I am just saying stagger the seats, if we have four, two can be for a year and the other two initially for six months. [15:42] And then every election afterwards is for two seats for one year. [15:42] That also gives some kind of continuity to the Committee. [15:42] <Wally|AMAFK> Oh yes. [15:42] <Wally|AMAFK> I agree completely. [15:43] <Wally|AMAFK> Depending upon how many seats are available. [15:43] <Metasquares> I agree with that as well [15:43] Or should we call it "the synarchy of the whole" to make Sam happy? [15:44] <Sam_Spadeaway> heh... [15:44] How about "Synarchy of the Inner Temple" and we make senior advocates "Grand Priests". Sam, would you like to be a Grand Priest of the Synarchy of the AMA? [15:45] How is that for a "title of honour"? [15:45] <Metasquares> :)

..continued on AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05) Pt. III.