Subject: LetÂ’s see whether I get this right
Author:
Posted on: 2015-02-04 09:54:00 UTC

Looking on the Wiki’s list of Permission Givers, the First Five (Jay and Acacia, and GreyLadyBast, Miss Cam and Thalia Weaver) cannot be affected by community decisions. Should they have “permanent” appended to their names?

Everybody else who is not also currently a voting member of Plort’s Baronical Council (BeautyID, Bjam, Doc Filth, DML, JulyFlame, Kaitlyn, Laburnum, Leto Haven, NenyaQuende, Rohirric Monkey, Sedri, Tough Cookie, Trojie and TZA), is by default considered to have been seen only very occasionally at best for a long time, and will get “inactive” appended to their names. Any objections? July?

Supposing that “zero activity” for at least one year will be the consensus, at any time (or only at a specific occasion, like the annual Baronial Council?), somebody suspecting that a PG may have left without notice may ask whether PG Insert-Name-Here has been seen posting on the Board, chatting in the IRC or editing the Wiki during the last year. If nobody speaks up within a reasonable span of time, somebody may then edit the Wiki to append “inactive” to PG Insert-Name-Here. (This will probably be Makari’s fate in the near future, leaving us with ten active Permission Givers.)

But I don’t see how automatic reactivation after three months of sufficient activity should work. The Wiki doesn’t edit itself.

HG

Reply Return to messages