@JamesBot Room Owner Access about culture HOT 12 CLOSED

Honestly the RO list needs an overhaul anyway and anyone not active in the last 2 months should be removed. I would be fine with stepping down as well if people want me to and new people (the ones active now) should take charge of managing the community.

As much as I would love to have Octavian/Jan/Denys/Ben/Eva and the rest of the gang active that ship has sailed years ago and we old folk should make way for new leadership.

from culture.

https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/48034105#48034105

from culture.

I already said that I have no objection in being removed if it seems I'm in the way of a new leadership.

The new leadership of SO made me stop answering questions already...

from culture.

We should open a new issue for the topic of New Management. I think we can safely call this proposal separate from that (much larger) one.

from culture.

I went ahead and made this happen since no one opposed it, feel free to open another issue if this needs to be revisited.

from culture.

I think in this case, this is more than just a vote for RO access for a bot, it's a vote for RO access to both the bot and the person running it... because at that point they are an RO, as they own/control both accounts. It doesn't really make sense in my opinion to do one without the other.

from culture.

That said...

I don't think moving poorly formatted code to the trash is as important as it used to be, due to how little activity the room gets now.

from culture.

@tentonaxe I think you make a very good point here. By giving RO to the bot user your are effectively giving me RO. However, I would like to point out an important distinction between my user (@jbis) and bot user (@Jamesbot) getting RO.

As I see it, voting for someone to become RO comes with two main components. You trust that person not to abuse their power and also that they will be an effective and fair moderator. They are there to help settle disputes if they arise and have the power to kick someone and even disable to room temporarily if necessary.

By voting only for Jame's user (and not me) to become RO, you are trusting that I won't abuse the power of RO through Jame's user. However, it does not mean (or at least I don't see myself this way) that I have any more authority than a regular user. I am equal to a non RO user. Assuming you trust me not to abuse my power, I see a distinction between me being RO and James being RO.

That being said, with the loss of a couple ROs, I am willing to become a RO. I am not sure if other RO's want that. Most of the people voting on this have will have interacted with me at some point and have seen me interact with others so I see no reason to explain why I think I would be a good RO. That is for you all to decide.

from culture.

+1 for James and Josh being distinct users that I don't expect to overlap. I say we make an existing RO (Kevin?) a joint owner of the James repository and account credentials, to discourage abuse.

I don't really think we need any new actual ROs; whenever there's a problem, it's easy enough to ping someone else to take care of it. But I did encounter someone post unformatted code that James caught but couldn't do anything about (and was therefore left unchanged) within the last hour. It's annoying.

from culture.

Giving me access to the repo wouldn't do much, i'm too lazy for that to make any difference, bsides, ownership of it isn't required to see/monitor it.

from culture.

Hey... I'm not so old!

from culture.

lmao, I misrecognized the issue I was commenting to, but glad you took it in a fun way.
😄
shouldn't have deleted that comment either now that I think of it, mb :P

from culture.