Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
PerlMonks  

Re: How do janitors get fired?

by davido (Cardinal)
on Jan 10, 2007 at 17:17 UTC ( #593952=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to How do janitors get fired?

Participation in a cabal group is at the discretion of the gods. While it is possible for the gods to reconsider an individual's membership in a group, and it does happen, it's not common for an individual to be singularly dropped from a group. The few times I've seen it happen have been when someone is repeatedly "talked to" about abusing a privilege of his cabal group, or has explicitly stated that (s)he doesn't desire that responsibility anymore. It's not always a bad thing, it's just a change.

Recently the gods asked the janitors collectively to reaffirm their individual desires to participate. Those who didn't express an interest in continuing have been freed of their obligation and duty. This was partially motivated by a need to know who we really have, and who is just 'on the list' but essentially inactive, or worse, active but not reading the memos. The gods simply wanted to ensure a more consistent application of site policy.


Dave

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: How do janitors get fired?
by jeffa (Bishop) on Jan 10, 2007 at 18:06 UTC

    I was mostly absent from the site when ysth announced in the Janitor's Wiki that all janitors who wished to remain on the team say so. Just because my participation was at a low level at that time does not mean that it will remain so in the future. I have been a member of janitors for many years -- i have abided by policy when making formatting corrections and it is hard not to take this personally.

    I feel that making this request at the Wiki was sneaky. If ysth wanted to cut back on the number of janitors, then i feel he should have sent out private /msg's to every member asking if they wish to remain on the team or not. Now that i have been kicked off the team, i feel that i will have to prove my worthiness again. The first time, i was appointed by vroom. Now someone else gets to call that shot, and i find this to be very unfair. I put in many hours as a janitor, and i do not appreciate someone removing me from a group without directly contacting me first.

    I hope this is the first and last time such behavior happens here at the Monastery.

    jeffa

    L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
    -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
    B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
    H---H---H---H---H---H---
    (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)
    

      Yes, it was sneaky. That is part of why it worked as well as it did. Although it risked some false positives (catching good, active janitors who happened to be out of contact with the site during the window), the alternative had greater risk of false negatives (alerting inactive janitors to jump in and request continued membership). Given previous attempts to cull inactive members from privileged groups, I think the level of sneakiness was appropriate.

      Also, given the number and activity level of those who did respond in time, it was decided that no second chances would be given to those who missed the time window. This was not so much a reflection on those who missed the window, as it was that we had sufficient janitors and we don't want to add more at this time, even if the sample of janitors that remained was obtained somewhat at random rather than strictly on merit, and thus not as fair as desired.

      Privileged access is, not surprisingly, a privilege. Loss of privilege requires little justification, perhaps unfortunately. In some ways we would prefer to have good reason for removing privileges (in some ways, not). Privileged membership had previously been granted sometimes with too little care, guidance, and oversight. This means that some people will be losing privileges without damning evidence that they need to lose the privilege.

      There has recently been a shift in attention to policy; I complained about some long-standing shifts away from policy and pushed to get responses and found that much of the silence in response to my previous complaints had been silent agreement rather than apathy or silent disagreement and this resulted in several people pushing for changes. A shake-up among janitors is one result of that.

      I'm sorry that you missed the opportunity to remain in janitors, jeffa. But we're going to keep with our decision to not give second chances in this case. Thank you for your years of service, they were appreciated.

      - tye        

        Hmm, IMHO this is a little extreme - I understand the points you make, but if an ex-janitor can show they have been an active and conscientious editor, and participated appropriately in the wiki, I do feel they ought to be allowed some route of appeal.

        I make no comment as to whether jeffa would pass such a test or not.

        map{$a=1-$_/10;map{$d=$a;$e=$b=$_/20-2;map{($d,$e)=(2*$d*$e+$a,$e**2 -$d**2+$b);$c=$d**2+$e**2>4?$d=8:_}1..50;print$c}0..59;print$/}0..20
        Tom Melly, pm@tomandlu.co.uk
        tye,
        Although it risked some false positives (catching good, active janitors who happened to be out of contact with the site during the window), the alternative had greater risk of false negatives (alerting inactive janitors to jump in and request continued membership). Given previous attempts to cull inactive members from privileged groups, I think the level of sneakiness was appropriate.

        It seems to me that reducing the false positives (you are a bunch of smart folks with access to logins and what not) would supercede culling inactive members as a top priority for obvious reasons. I am more than a little suprised to see that a no exception policy is being made and that this was done with the foreknowledge that people would be affected for no good reason.

        Things would have to get a lot worse for me to leave the site but this change in behavior seems wrong to me. I fully admit more may be happening behind the scenes that would warrant this attitude but I am confused as to why that behavior would remain hidden from the general populace but acts to correct it would not. Whatever. Thanks for all your years of service.

        Cheers - L~R

        Yes, it was sneaky. That is part of why it worked as well as it did.

        ...

        I'm sorry that you missed the opportunity to remain in janitors, jeffa. But we're going to keep with our decision to not give second chances in this case. Thank you for your years of service, they were appreciated.

        The decision to "not give a second chance in this case" is wrong, IMHO, and specially in jeffa's case.

        Why cut somebody from doing a service to the community they ardently wish to do, but keeping others that just happened to be logged in at some point within an arbitrary timeframe, and were able to express a "me too"? (which "me too" is only to illustrate, not that I think any of the janitors lack merit).

        What troubles me most is the sneaky part. Ostensibly, that worked well, but it might have done more harm than good. Isn't it okay for a cabal to be offsite for a couple of days (or maybe weeks) for some reasons? e.g. for serious holidays, which means no computer to some? or having to meet a really deadly deadline?

        This sounds a lot like coming back from holidays and having one's house demolished for a bypass road and an officer declaring "well,you weren't here when we knocked"... an Arthur Dent style of fate.

        Really, for a Perl related website, all this sounds very startling and weird to me. Isn't nearly all in Perl about context? and doesn't perl try hard to validate that and please both caller and callee? Stick to the wisdom of your language :-)

        If the decision to "keep with our decision" doesn't have an exception, the system likely will panic one day. And if even a monk like jeffa which is here since 2000-06-19 and number 13 in Saints in our Book doesn't get his exclusion reconsidered, I kindly ask for removal of myself from pedagogues and pmdev, reasons being:

        • I can't provide 365/52/7/24 service to the community
        • I'm new to internals and might not be quick enough getting fit to contribute
        • as a cabal, I didn't contribute anything yet (my policy ever has been "lurk, before you speak")

        But I'm sure, you'll be able to recruit somebody else which meets the criteria.

        On a personal note, tye, that back-patting "thank you" to jeffa comes across really as very disrespectful. I wonder if it really is. What's really up?

        --shmem

        _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                                      /\_¯/(q    /
        ----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
        ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
        Privileged access is, not surprisingly, a privilege. Loss of privilege requires little justification, perhaps unfortunately.

        To be honest, this is why I have failed to express interest in joining the cabal. I have nothing but respect for the work the gods do to keep the site and the community functional. Moreover, I will not deny that the gods have the authority to make such decisions on a basis which can be, to borrow a phrase, arbitrary, capricious, and final(*). But I have seen such decisions and what comes off as a certain accompanying smugness (possibly unintended but I can't be certain) which is, for me, enough to say "no thanks."

        (*) ChemBoy will doubtless give me a hard time about this for reasons not relevant here.

        Update: In case for some reason someone reads this node again I should add that the above was a poor choice of words on my part in an attempt to link in a stupid inside joke.

        Given previous attempts to cull inactive members from privileged groups, I think the level of sneakiness was appropriate.

        Previous attempts?

        I've been mostly inactive as a janitor for well over a year. A simple /msg noting a desire to cull the list, and I would happily have relinquished. (And a /msg after I'd been removed from the list would have saved me some confusion if I did see something that needed janitoring, felt so inclined, and then found that I couldn't any more.)

        The way this was done feels like one of those student government takeovers by the cabal who've figured out how to use Roberts Rules of Order to exclude everyone else. Being a janitor requires hanging around in the editors' wiki? I rarely did that back when I was doing a lot of janitoring.

        To my mind, you'd have been better off saying publicly that you were going to cull the list, and that decisions would be arbitrary.

        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
        Usually I look to you as someone who is fairy smart and wise, which is very hard to be, but you slipped up on this one. Big time.

        This isn't a job where perlmonks pays people to do a job. "Still want your job? Reply here!" Instead, you cut people off. I wasn't one of them nor do I want to be one of them. This is completely voulentary. In the end, you took the false positive and cut them off anyhow not admiting a mistake. Very bad exampe you've set for anyone who wishes to contribute in such a manner. "Sure, do some work for us, but we'll cut you off randomly without notification."

        Sadly, your generic, "they were appreciated" only shows contempt. I'm sure the same could be said of holli or whomever else has been "demoted".

        Then again, I never saw you reply on the wiki either. Were you given a second chance?

        Sorry, I can understand, "we need to reduce our numbers, trim some of the fat." Doing so in circumstances as it's been demonstrated.. ugh. This reeks.

        GrandFather replied to ysth's announcement after the window had closed. You didn't reply at all.
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^2: How do janitors get fired?
by exussum0 (Vicar) on Jan 11, 2007 at 04:03 UTC
    Good idea, poor implementation, whomever thought it out and executed upon it.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://593952]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (2)
As of 2021-02-28 07:43 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?