What the hell is wrong with you? I've been saying that it's not really a democratic election for weeks or months.

But it's still a vote of confidence. If the community seems to think we're on the wrong path, we'd re-evaluate. When you're against us, it's a sign from the Internet gods that we're doing something right.

For Frick's sake, the vote does matter. 

If the vote was 10% in favour, that would surely say we had screwed up and have to look again, and listen more.

You will see that we worked extensively with folks to get consensus and make mods on proposals prior to bringing them forward.

If we just wanted to do whatever we wanted, the moderators would be different, the site procedures would have been per our original post.

Note, if we had gone with our basic instincts and plans, the site would be fully operational by now with everyone on it.

The time to listen, adjust, and go through this sequentially has slowed down the startup.  

The admins felt that it was important that it be a community effort.

This is about listening to the community, requesting input, and getting confirmation.

I trust that most of the folks on this site get that.

Thank you, chansen

Your latest post explains everything very nicely.

And I understand that you don't approve. I bet you have plenty of knowledge and skills with fundraising and the like, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about with WC2. Less than zero.

I've tried to answer your questions, and you try to make my answers seem like they're written by Saddam Hussein. You're working on the mother of all obstructions. Why? Because we're not following your horrible ideas? Of course not. They are not good ideas.

If we suck so bad, don't join. Write Stephen Harper a grant proposal to engage a social media firm to create a web forum from the ground up complete with 24/7 staff, or whatever the hell it is you seem to think we need to do here, and register wondercafe3.ca. It's available.

Pinga, I refer you to your colleague's comments.

WC2 is not a democratic process, votes, at the end of the day may or may not matter, and anyone who questions this process is open to attack - again, fair enough because it is human nature to attack a person when logic fails.

I give up. This is hopeless.

I would have voted yes for this!

Can you imagine the accusations then?

Oh I don't know, I didn't vote for anyone on this site, and I still came.

I don't know, Pinga. I'd have been just as happy or happier if you'd just done it and let the chips fall where they may. People I suspect had decided long before WC2 was a glimmer in your eye who they did or didn't trust on the site. I don't think that the three of you just going ahead with it would have made much difference, and it would have avoided some of the circular conversations that have been going on. 

There will always be accusations no matter what one does, if one is doing something important.  THe accusations are often the same for those who do good and those who do bad things.  Most of what we do is actually both good and bad, so the worst thing is that one can feel guilty for the bad parts while ignoring the good.

People making accusations (unless they are trolls) are often doing so based on their past experiences. This in particluar is the case with new things like WC2.  These past experiences may be based on past experiences with the leadership (admin), however it may also have to do with their experiences elsewhere. 

SO I try to follow the advice I once recieved froma Rabbi involved in the community.  AND that is more or less to respond to the questioner, as oppose to the question.

Howevr I usually amd unable to figure out what that is.  HOwevr I find the process in an of itself enlightens me.  ANd what counts to mne, is my response, and not just the ability of being able to "get" the other.

HOwevr more important any project will benefit from the imput of as many people as possible. The more people that take responsibility for something the more likely it will survive. 

Steven, in hindsight, you're probably right.

But we didn't just come to the community for optics - we really wanted to create something that people had input on and felt they had a stake in. If we just debut a site, it's my site, and Pinga's site, and Mendalla's site. The intention is that it is the community's site. We want to get buy-in, but we don't want to go so far as hold truly democratic elections for all aspects of the site, because we truly feel that the appointed council approach is, by far, the better way to run a forum. It is, by far, the most popular way active forums are run.

If I am wrong on that, redhead could have showed me how democracy is the way to run a forum. Instead, we get constant sniping but no good argument why we should have democratic elections for forum governance. Just the implied assumption that it is. I linked to discussions of other forum owners whe agreed open elections are not the way to do it. If you're going to say that's wrong, point to who is doing it successfully, and how. That would be great. There has been some excellent feedback throughout this process, but the strongest criticism of our methods has very seldom come with the benefit of an informed opinion.

The follow up to my previous post, was that as a sysop so many years ago, I had to learn not to take attacks on my judgement/character/etc personal, becasue 1 they were about the other persons experiences in life.

or that 2 they were due to my inability to undertsand what was really the problem with the questioner.

This helped relieve my frustration and my neurosis over not being able to come up with an answer that would satisfy the other person.    These were what weighed me down.       WHile other leaders may be weighed down by other things, these two were my dominate problems.

Democracies don't work well anymore, when the mainstream media is run for the benefit of the 1%. (rich bastards) at the expense of the 99% (rest of us).....

So I personally think WC2 should be run by benevolent dictators (Pinga, Chansen,Mendalla) -or the same three can declare martial law - whichever is the quicker.

At this rate of circular discourse I'll be a dead parrot before Wondercafe2 is up and running.......

Actually, RevJohn presented a very good electoral process - a while ago.

A democratic process - elect by voting for each person listed.

Again, as I have stated, I do not have an issue with who and how WC2 operates - it is great that volunteers organise to plant and cultivate an internet place to fill the void of WC's closure.

I do have an issue with the appearance that seeking input, and presenting a voting process that is meaningless, suggests that input and voting matters.

The voting process, presented here, is, in and of itself,optical.  It is a buy-in or rejection process.  And, if I understand correctly, specifically designed as such.

A vote cast either way, does not have any impact as to how WC2 will move forward - again, fair enough, but do not seek input where it will not be received or placed into practise.

Regarding internet practises, well I can only suggest that there are  very few rules- how and who operate sites is not well regulated .  Anyone can start up a site, and unless the site clearly breaks current law, all is fair game. 

The good news is that WC2 admin has stated that their site will be operated within the best practises of not for profit organisations, and I suspect that UCCan continued involvement will contribute to such a governance.

That said, I find it difficult to understand a voting process that has no influence, no merit, and no consequence. 

Simply remove the voting process, launch WC2 and move forward.  It is not democratically designed - fair enough - and thank you, chansen, for putting forth that information.  Then do not present a voting process, which is a keystone of democratic process.

Instead, poll potential members for opinion.

Hi redhead,

Respectfully I disagree.  If the vote failed and Pinga, Chansen and Mendalla simply installed the admins they thought would work best then casting a vote would not have mattered.

That the vote did not fail means that we cannot test the outcome for that eventuality.  Any argument that Pinga, Chansen and Mendalla woould have ignored the outcome is an argument from silence and fails on that count.

The only outcome we have to evaluate is the outcome that we have seen a slate was presented, the general membership consented to that slate rather than reject it.

As the current structure directs votes would only happen in the event one of the council is removed (that this is a possible outcome is significant to democratic process).  As has been pointed out the constitution can be changed and term limits set.

Will it happen?  I expect it will be discussed.  Voluntary positions should never become life sentences.

Perhaps.  That is more an assessment of the voters than it is the nominees.  It implies that no discernment is undertaken before a ballot is cast.

While it is true that the members of council have been selected by the current admins that selection did not happen in a vacuum nor did it happen without consultation.  The selection proces was also not the end of the process, the presentation of the slate for a yea or nay vote means that the council was both selected and elected.

While a vote is cornerstone to democratic process (and I would argue that we have had a vote) the democratic process also recognizes acclamation.  Which may happen in one of two ways.  A yea or nay vote or straight appointment.

I am also the chair of a not for profit corporation that elects its executive annually by means of slate.  So it is not an unheard of process.

A slate is presented and the stakeholders can vote to approve the slate or reject the slate.  If the slate is rejected another slate will be selected.  Does that not influence in some way who operates WC2?  It influenced the moderator selection and election at any rate.

In answer to the two questions posed:

1) voting matters in that it is the means by which the moderators at least will be placed on the council.  Unless someone is willing to raise the point that their particular nominee was not considered or would have been elected over and against another we will not know how biased the selection of the slate has been.  We also will not know how a rejected slate would have been handled since the slate proposed was not rejected.  If voter participation dipped that might be an indication of some reluctance or rejection.

2) that there has been consultation is certainly far more democratic than none at all.  That documentation presented for consultation has been amended as a result of stakeholder input is far more democratic than ignoring any or all input.  Placing even a yea or nay vote before stakeholders is far more consensus building that a like it or leave it attitude and I would argue indicates a more democratic process than anything presented as fait acompli.

Now, is it a perfect democracy?  No, it isn't.

Who votes for President in the United States of America, the general public or the Electoral College?  Does the electoral college ever represent the diversity of vote cast within any given state?  If not how did votes for any other than the majority vote taker count for anything?  And yet, the United States of America is generally recognized as participant in democratic process.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Wait a minute... There were chips going Around? Somehow I missed out on those. Were they barbecue flavor? Maple moose?

Skimming through this I am aware that at least part of the criticism for hang ups in process is being directed at me. Rev.Steven you are probably right that they would have avoided problems by just doing it and not asking for input. However, that's not what happened, and so they got input. In some ways, them just going ahead would have been better, but if we're going to be involved we we should be able to ask questions and get transparent answers without being made a fool of in the process of expressing concern. Would you prefer a nice cheery bunch who never raised any controversial issues or topics, even if those topics are concerns as the new site is being built? We never have been that. We could work on being more respectful- but we've never just been dull and agreeable. I want to know why it's okay to criticize our elected officials, their policies, question what structures of power can do with their power- we discuss what that so and so politician did and how awful- we talk about buying green and not shopping at Walmart- we have had conversations about detaching from structures of money and power, being aware, and focusing on common good- but why we are supposed to have complete confidence in a total strangers who have made known that they part of those structures of power we may not agree with- in daily life? Seems hypocritical not to question. We know what UCC is about but we do not know what XY Corp. is about. By comparison- I think it's as appropriate to question that as it is to question where you shop and what you buy, or buy into and who they're affiliated with- and to make known your concern instead of being a blind consumer. If who you're buying from cares, they will be civil to you and do their best to address your concern without scoffing. Like if you were sudficiently annoyed and you wrote your MP a complaint letter about their policies and practices- even if you were ill informed to begin with -you'd expect a decent answer not an angry mob- if that official cared about their contituency. On another the hand- for some reason I'm not surprised that a mainstream church going Christian group here would act like a lynch mob just because I brought it up. Some of you can criticise what you read in the news but can't see how being a polly anna blind consumer leads to problems to begin with if you don't ask questions of your leaders because everything's rosey.

Pinga. I do very much appreciate your thoughtful and thorough replies to my questions on the other thread. You addressed several of my concerns.

kimmio, if you put the post above re criticism in a new thread, i will respond there.

off topic

Hi Kimmio,

Respectfully, there have been no hang ups in the process.  It has been criticized and, at some points, I think the criticism has been slightly unfair (case in point the non-democratic nature).

All deadlines that have been set for consultation and voting have ben fulfilled without recourse to delay.

I disagree with Rev. Steven on that point.  The absence of any nominations, consultations or voting would have cemented the opinions voiced and silent that WC2 is being controlled by a population hostile to certain elements here at WonderCafe.ca.

I presume you are using XY Corp as a substitute for WC2.

While it is true to some degree that we do not know it is also true (I submit to a larger degree) that we do know what WC2 is about.  It is about a successor site to WonderCafe which closes its doors at the end of the month.

Everything that WC2 has put in place, with respect to governance has been vetted by interested parties via consultation and yea or nay vote.  Unless WC2 actually is a shell set up with a hidden agenda and controlled by a back-room contingent that is planning to steal identities and personal information from members using the identities of individuals who have been available to us for a number of years I think suspicion is unwarranted.

I find the comparison to lynch mob to be distasteful owing to the reality of actual lynch mob violence being completely absent from the proceedings so far.

There has been disagreement and at some points tempers have flared.

Comparing that to actual physical murder is over the top and detrimental to your point.

The allegations of pollyannaism are, I believe, also over the top.  WC2 has presented itself openly and responded to criticism.  Where that criticism has been fair corrections have been made.  Where that criticism has been wide of the target it has been acknowledge and treated appropriately.

With respect to participants as consumers the only difference will be who is responsible for the site.  Each of us provides the content others consume.  That will not change between WonderCafe.ca and WC2 with the exception that not all members will make the transition so our diets will be altered.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Another significant difference is that Wondercafe is owned and operated by a church denomination which by law must operate on a nonprofit basis. Wondercafe2, on the other hand, is privately owned by a group of individuals who are without legal compulsion to keep the site as nonprofit.

flip-flop RevJohn

Fair enough Rev John. I retract the lynch mob comment. I will ask Aaron to remove those words from that post on the Bew thread I started. It was hyperbole for "mob mentality" castigating, not literal.

How the hell are we going to turn a profit on that site?

That would be the biggest miracle in all of Christianity.

I believe that seeds of bigger problems occur when you do not question who you're putting in control. WC1 is employed by UCCan staff. WC2 is not. WC2 staff will be employed by volunteers who are employed by their employers with their employer's ethics. And so how do I not know that their employer is Dr. Evil as far as everything I value and believe in? If I'm concerned I ought to ask. If that's the case I at least ought to know how much managing of the site is being done on Dr.Evil's premises and what Dr. Evil can do with it. It is perfectly fair to have doubts and I should not be criticised for that.

Now you are suggesting the admins are "evil" and their employers are "evil".....my, my!

At the risk of sounding redundant and repetitive, if you have concerns about WC2 - DON'T JOIN!

What the hell?

Well, first of all, I'm unemployed, living off life savings while I conduct a slow job search and do some contract work from home to pay some of the bills. My wife, that I'm aware, is not Dr. Evil, though she is a PhD. Mostly, she's Dr. I-Remember-Every-Bad-Thing-You've-Ever-Done.

Second of all, no one cares. The only problem any employer in Canada would have with employing an admin from WC2 is that they are slacking off at work, doing WC2 stuff. That's it. The same would go if they were slacking off, managing a Pokemon site. No one cares about who the members are, what they believe, and what positions they take. Nobody. None. Not even Suncor. Not even Sun News.

In case I've been unclear, there is nothing to worry about. No lawsuits coming (unless we host death threats or kiddie porn, which is one advantage of having lots of admins and mods who can quickly remove anything inappropriate). No employers using our logins to scour the forum for....I don't even know what. Nothing is less interesting to them than some random religious forum.

If a lawyer has a problem with forum content, they will send a warning first. Always. Anything from potential libel to DMCA violations get a sternly worded letter. Otherwise, we can always say that we were unaware.

But mostly, we are really small potatoes, nobody cares about us, and nobody is going to hack you through us unless you post images of your SIN card. As long as you don't do anything reckless like that, you're fine.

I can't do better than that. There is no one watching over our shoulders. If CSIS or the NSA is archiving the site...we can't stop them. My advice? Don't post instructions for making a bomb, and they will care as much as our employers do - not at all.

Don't question anything. Ever. Trust everyone and everything. Your leaders know what's good for you. Take a soma and repeat the mantra.

Well, I asked the questions and got some answers yesterday. That's something. Had I not asked I would not have gotten the answers but I should not be criticised for questioning. Who's building the new billion dollar spy palace by the way? Who are the contractors for that mega project that we're paying for? What are they going to do there? We don't know. Canadians don't care. Don't ask questions. Trust everyone. Your leaders always know what's good for you. Take a soma and repeat the mantra. I've got fresh baked cookies and tea!

We don't tax you. We can't hack your bank account. If you don't post it, we can't see it. We can't arrest you, incarcerate you, seize your property, or anything of the sort.

All we can do is provide you a service that is free to you. Which you can walk away from at any time. No cancellation fees, no dues, no fines, no repercussions of any kind. None.

Your local city councillor has far more power over you than we do. How many questions have you emailed him or her? How many questions have you asked of Christy Clark? Stephen Harper?

Hi redhead,

This is a politically charged statement.  It attempts to equate views held in tension with inconsistency.  The ultimate goal of such an exercise is the dismissal of both the idea(s) held and the person(s) holding it (them).

That said, I do not believe I have been inconsistent in my notion that WC2 and its governance are proceeding in a democratic fashion.  Democracies exist all around the world with variations at play in how voting happens.

Here in Canada we have a democratic government even if one chamber of the government (ie., the Senate is filled by appointment).  If a yea or nay vote to elect a slate of officers is undemocratic how much more so the appointment of individuals without public vetting?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Chansen: A few. I have asked questions of elected officials. I have signed petitions. It's still supposed to be a free country but we turn a blind eye until the freedoms are erroded. If you were all operating from home none of this would really matter.

I seriously hope admin does NOT amend your post. You said it, it stands. Changing post content is not an admins job.

Agreed on that point. A moderator's job is not to save you from yourself and scrub your posts because you embarrassed yourself. You can admit to a mistake, apologize, etc. You should not be able to scrub your post history clean.

Okay what if I said you were 'crucifying me' or 'sending me to the gallows', or 'running me out of town'...common expressions, colloquial, hyperbole, not literally true. Here is the Oxford Dictionary:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lynch-mob

Example usage from the above linked page: "Yet, those talk show audiences can be like lynch mobs." Colloquial. Just like I used it. I shouldn't have. Here comes the mob to tell me that....

I have no problem with people being involved and asking questions and getting transparent answers. I simply don't think that was necessary or even important for the initial work of setting up the site and getting it running. No one outside the General Council staff was involved in setting up this version of Wonder Cafe and - somehow, miracle of miracles, we all ended up here without being asked for opinions or input. And, it's not only you. I think there have been circular (and, therefore, pointless) discussions going on. The same questions being raised over and over and over again and, frankly in my opinion, very clear answers often being given - and meaning nothing, because the questions keep being raised in spite of very clear answers. That suggests that a few people have major issues of trust that they will not let go. That being the case, they really should think carefully about being involved in WC2. I'm not telling anyone to not be a part of it. I'm saying that for their own sake no one should be a part of a community where there are basic and profound levels of distrust so that even very clear answers won't be accepted. And you're not at all the only one involved. 

Nope. But the issue is that in some cases specific questions have been asked, specific assurances have been given, and they won't be accepted, so that the questions keep getting asked and asked, so that the admins get increasingly frustrated and exasperated and things end up being said in that context. Frankly, were I an admin, I'd be frustrated with some of the conversations going on as well.

You're not supposed to have "complete confidence" in them. But, once an assurance is given those asking for the information could at least wait for the promise to be broken before expressing distrust.

You're farther ahead than I am, then. I'm really not too sure what the UCC is about half the time. No joke. So if you know, please explain it to me. Again - no joke. No sarcasm. I'm not sure I know what the UCC is about. 

While I accept that you do, I personally see no lynch mob. I do see people frustrated and exasperated because answers are being given to the best of their ability but not accepted. If there are no answers concrete and specific enough to satisfy someone's concerns, then that someone again should choose no to be a part of the new site. But I don't believe there's been a refusal to answer questions.

That's a pejorative statement and not worthy of a response.

Hi Kimmio,

Is there a point when the questioning goes beyond the fitness of the individual(s) assigned to their respective task(s)?

Agreed.  Do we presume that non-UCCan staff cannot, as a rule, be trusted?

WC2 will be staffed by volunteers.  Volunteers are not employees.

Even if we accept this to be true in the most absolute sense.  Have these individuals comported themselves here in such as way as to demonstrate how their employer's ethics conflict with WonderCafe.ca?

If they are so beholden to their employer's ethics would that not govern their regular posting activity?

Or does employer's ethics only become a concern when folk are given (or willingly take on) specific responsibility?

Bearing in mind that Dr. Evil is a fictional and comedic character let us consider the real issue of conflict.

In order to know the Employer's ethics of any and all affiliated with the WC2 Council you would need to know who their employer is and the ethics employed by their employer.  You would also need to know whether or not those ethics spill over into free time.

Dr. Evil has no right to private material.

I may correspond via personal e-mail account while at work.  My employer can track that I have accessed that account.  My employer has no right to access that account.

In the event that my employer suggests that I have been involved in corporate spying and that I have used my personal account to pass on sensitive information my employer will need to apply for a search warrant to access any terminal I have access to.

If my employer feels I spend too much time (as defined by the employer) on personal e-mail or discussion boards while at work the employer has the right to block my access to personal e-mail or non work related sites.

Whomever actually employs Pinga, Chansen or Mendalla (as examples) does not have the right to access WC2 or pull your, mine or anyone else's personal information from this site.

If they want that kind of access they are going to need to apply for a search warrant and they are going to have to demonstrate that their employee's connection to WC2 represents a real and significant risk to them as their employer.  Unless anyone affiliated with WC2 has access to national or military secrets that is unlikely to happen.

What would be more plausible is that CSIS or the RCMP would have an agent set up an account at WC2 to monitor their posting patterns and responses to those posts.

It is fair to have doubts and those doubts should not be criticized.

The scope of those doubts may or may not be reasonable and the more unreasonable doubt becomes the more difficult it becomes to address it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Kimmio and Redhead. STOP IT. If you don't like WC2, don't join. But don't wreck the whole project just because you have nothing else in your life to do. Go to Raging Cats or whatever the website is if you want to start a fight. TAKE IT AWAY FROM HERE> I am disappointed in both of you. RedHead, we were your mainstay years back. These same people that you are criticizing supported you daily.

Sigh. Never mind. This wouldn't have grown if it wasn't dismissed in the first place. I am disappointed by the lack of support for my concerns and maybe more than me, here too. I am disappointed by some of your responses to me CH. And Rev Steven these aren't the kinds of questions you ask later. Sorry if that's not in everyone's comfort zone. I'm taking a break. I won't post anymore.

Hi crazyheart,

This represents a fair comment.

This represents an unfair comment.

It is unfair in that neither redhead nor kimmio have the power to wreck anything others decide to build particularly on-line.

This comment is way over the top and is a demonstration of shaming which I personally find incredibly distasteful.

Disagree with either if you wish, there is no need to demonize.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Telling the truth (as I see it)  is not demonizing, John. It may be rude but I am not demonizing. I apologize for my rudeness.

User fees and adverting sales come most immediately to mind. You won't ever try to run the site on a for-profit bases, but you could.

Well this is certainly an interesting read.

.
Kimmio, I know you are no longer posting as mentioned above but I hope that you will continue to read if you get delight in it.

Personally, if it doesn't delight you then find something that does. Life should be about enjoyment when we are talking about leisure time activities.
.
I understand you have fears and of course lately we have all heard about various threats to our personal security and information. I am one of those people who always uses the same password which is such a bad idea , according to experts. But there you go, hard to remember all the ones I am supposed to remember.

.

To our admins and our new moderators. Good luck and good wishes and thanks for stepping up

thank you Lastpointe - following along recent threads from afar - it no doubt will be an interesting journey!

where are you now Carolla?

Okay, I have posted the results (see link below). The Council is now officially confirmed. 

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-council-results

Things are progressing over on the new site and people (the mods and some beta testers) are trying things out and getting some "tips and tricks" up to help others when they arrive. We do need to have a final run at the Code of Conduct, but we are letting the new mods have first crack at the latest draft first before we post it here for the rest of you to peruse. So, there is more to come.

Mendalla

A big thanks to Pinga, Mendalla and Chansen for all the hard work and slings and arrows they've put into the WC2. It doesn't matter what kind of democratic voting or benevolent dictatorship you apply the words of ole Abe will always apply:

"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."
- Abraham Lincoln