@jan you are totally fine that you removed me as an admin. I should have had a “Discourse Staff” label, but that is something I should have checked for, sorry about that. Our admin status should just be for us to provide any support that comes up and we don’t need to be permanent admins, but yes should be different from your core team. You could think about adding a Core team label for your core team members if that would help.
@blake.erickson thank you!
Let’s pick this up again to achieve clarity. We just kind of swept the whole admin question under the rug. However, I think it’s a very important question and since we want to use Discourse as one of our main communications platform it’s even more important.
We have some limitations and crucial information regarding admins:
- We can only have 5 since the platform is graciously hosted by Discourse – thanks for that!
- Admins can obviously change settings, close topics, change everything about the site …
- Admins can read the private messages of any member and impersonate anyone, hence there needs to be a very high level of trust: https://meta.discourse.org/t/admins-can-clearly-see-all-private-messages-of-all-users/26794
- They are shown publicly at https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/about
I would suggest everyone nominates 5 people they absolutely trust to be admins of this forum, based on factors such as time of involvement, having met them in person or having had a call with them, history of good decisions, engagement in the community, organization of events, commitment to openness, etc.
My nominations are:
- @evalica - long-term involvement, organization of the FOSDEM Open Source Design room 2017
- @simonv3 - long-term involvement, website and overall organization work
- @belenbarrospena - long-term involvement, organization of the first two FOSDEM Open Source Design rooms, job board submission form
- @jdittrich - organization of the regular Berlin meetup, coordination work
- @victoria-bondarchuk - organization of the FOSSASIA Design track, talks at different events
(I only did not nominate @bnvk because he specifically stated he does not want to be very involved in the forum.)
Your nominations please.
Current tally, sorted by votes:
- @jan 14 votes
- @evalica 13 votes
- @belenbarrospena 13 votes
- @simonv3 13 votes
- @jdittrich 12 votes
- @ei8fdb 4 votes
- @victoria-bondarchuk 3 votes (stated she doesn’t necessarily want to be admin)
- @pdurbin 2 votes
- @elioqoshi 1 vote
- @bnvk 1 vote (stated he doesn’t want to be very involved inthe forum)
People who nominated already: @jan @belenbarrospena @simonv3 @victoria-bondarchuk @evalica @gilli @ei8fdb @jdittrich @eppfel @htietze @Xaviju @rioev @elioqoshi @ryangorley @Incabell @pdurbin
People yet to nominate their 5 candidates: @grahamperrin @studiospring @rosanardila @guiguru @danila.pellicani … and you, if you read this
I didn’t know this and it unsettles me quite a bit. Can we add this to the initial introduction topic? Something like “Warning: Discourse allows admin to read all content - including “private messages” - of this forum. This is for abuse prevention and legal reasons. See this thread on the Discourse meta forum for more details. We trust our admin, and they won’t do this unless they absolutely have to, but we thought you should know up front.”
My vote goes for:
@evalica (generally organization awesomeness, pro-activeness and know-how)
@belenbarrospena (osd know-how and organizational awesomeness)
@jan (we wouldn’t be here without Jan)
@jdittrich (in person meeting, knows and does great things)
@ei8fdb (osd know-how and go-getter)
These are people I trust with my PMs
Thank you @jan for the trust, but I don’t think I’m qualified for such responsibility and to be honest I don’t want to be near any personal messages that are not addressed to me. And what is more important, I have missed most of discussions when Discource was created so I don’t know much of the history.
Support @simonv3 candidates
someone will need to count the votes
I am very thankful for @grahamperrin that set up the Discourse instance, but I think the admins should be long time members of OSD that everyone trust. Graham lately had so much contributions, but I hardly talk with @studiospring or see his contributions. This is gained in time.
So I can say that I don’t agree with the description of the “balance and inclusivity” criteria:
I expect the admins to know very well what has been done in our community and to represent us. Also they should be minimal technical, willing to be admins and ideal cover both EU and USA timezones (for better responsiveness in case of troubles) (Victoria would have been great for the APAC zone, but she moved )
Open Source contributors sometime lose interest in some projects and might not be involved as in the beginning. So if we always want to have active / trusted members as admins we can hold this kind of votes periodically (once a year for example or in case we have a particular position to be replaced).
Ooh, I like that a lot.
My votes go out to:
I like the idea of votes periodically that @evalica suggested as well.
My nominations are:
@evalica (her thoughtful, level-headed, and honest-matter-of-factness approach when needed)
@simonv3 (when I read his comments I find myself agreeing)
@belenbarrospena (her long term involvement in open source projects and design, and her level-headedness)
@victoria-bondarchuk (her open way of discussion and doing things)
@jan (his involvement on open source and design and get-sh1t-done approach)
I agree with @evalica’s points about trust, longevity in involvement.
I’ve met all the above in person and worked with them at FOSDEM over the past 3 years and trust them. The only exception is @simonv3, but for my reasons above I trust him.
I do also agree we should discuss the possibility of periodical voting. It will bring the balance and inclusivity that @grahamperrin mentions which I think this is a good idea.
But (my personal opinion is) this view should come from community members who have been involved for a period of time.
Thank you to those who nominated me.
I tallied the votes so far and listed the current results in my reply at
Please make sure to double-check.
And there are some possible variations – (@evalica, do you like to be admin? I don’t remember anymore if you were much interested in discourse). Also I could imagine one of the openusability people being in the admin group, maybe @htietze if he likes?
I agree with the current tally, so my nominations are:
Because of the obvious reasons stated by you already!
I think it is a very good idea to hold annual polls about those fixed positions (not just this forum).
Yeap, I would like that Thanks for the nomination
Same vote from my side
I’m not at all clear what is being discussed here
Long story short, we’re determining who the five admin of the discourse forum should be. Usually we just grant anyone “once we trust them” (very nebulous and probably should be written down in the by-laws) admin status, but we’re limited in this situation because Discourse limits us to 5 admin.
Thanks! I’ve been out of the loop and trust people will make a good decision.