Subject: Permission Giver Emeritus discussion.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-02-02 10:21:00 UTC

It's been suggested several times during the PG election that we ought to have some kind of 'PG Emeritus' status - something that says someone is still a Permission Giver, but isn't currently entitled to give Permission. This is the sub-thread to discuss exactly how that should work. I'm hoping for a consensus, not a vote, so let's aim for that.

The questions, as I see them, are basically two: how does PG Emeritus status get activated, and how does it get removed?

Options I can think of for flipping to Emeritus:

-Don't post or visit the IRC at all for a given period of time.
-Don't meet a minimum level of activity for a given period.
-Be inactive, and have been made a PG a certain amount of time ago.
-Be inactive, and have been made a PG before a certain date.

My thought is that we should probably be looking at 'zero activity' as the benchmark; Techno-Dann, VixenMage and Araeph would all probably fail to meet any kind of 'minimum activity' line, but I can't imagine anyone wants to deactivate them. So how long do you have to be 'gone' for? Personally I'd suggest a year, solely because it's a nice round number.

The other option is to make it so that 'old PGs' are deactivated, even if they pop in occasionally. In that case, I'd probably set the benchmark at the introduction of Permission 3.0 - the 'writing samples from the table' model. If you haven't been active since then, you probably won't know how to do it, and you giving Permission will just confuse things.

(Either way, note that Kaitlyn will drop straight to Emeritus status; she's fine with that, and at least two of her 'no' votes have said they'd accept that option)

(Other note: I think it would be extraordinarily rude to 'deactivate' any of the first five PGs: Jay, Acacia, Miss Cam, GreyLadyBast, or Thalia Weaver. I don't think there's going to be any argument for the Originals, but feel free to debate the other three if you want)

Options I can think of for returning to Active:

-Post at all.
-Make a certain number of posts.
-Be active (either posting at all, or at a certain activity level) for a given period.
-Specifically request activation.

My preference would probably be 'active for a given period'. I'd define active as something like 5-10 posts a month - which, according to my records, is what PoorCynic is averaging, and we just voted him in - and say you have to meet it for three months. That's midway between the line for requesting Permission, and the arbitrary benchmark I imposed this time for becoming a Permission Giver.

So: discussion open. I don't think this needs to be a PGs-only decision, though I would like all our active PGs to chime in if they're interested.

hS

Reply Return to messages