[wp-forums] Titles/Promotions/Labels

[Kaf Oseo]

Lorelle VanFossen wrote:
> Gee, I thought the whole idea of having volunteers recognized was a good 
> one. It reinforced the idea of WordPress being made up of volunteers. I 
> personally was stunned when, upon "registering" I was now a "member" of 
> the Forum.  I carry a LOT of agenda over the word "member".  As a child 
> actor, being a "member" of the Screen Actors Guild was IMPORTANT and 
> earned. With no effort I'm a "member" of WordPress or at least a member 
> of the Forum. Hmmmm. Doesn't say much for the group if they let "me" in, 
> does it? ;-)

Once upon a time the forums allowed anonymous posters, and "member" had
a more specific meaning. But keep in mind that in this plan to bestow
honorary titles upon a select group of those "members," we're no longer
talking about what some forum software designates you to be when you
first join up.

> As a long time "member" of organizations, and one time  member or on the 
> board of directors for 26 profit and non-profit organizations, and too 
> much experience - recruitment and avoiding attrition is the MOST 
> important job next to fundraising. Without volunteers there is no 
> fundraising. Without volunteers, nothing gets done.  Volunteers are the 
> life force of any organization and they need to be recognized as 
> "members" or "volunteers" of the group as supporters. Recognition in 
> almost all of those groups came by distinguishing the difference between 
> a member and a volunteer. Members paid dues which entitled them to 
> specific benefits and rewards. Volunteers were members who gave of their 
> time, money, and energy beyond the basic dues to help the organization 
> continue. Volunteers got recognition through titles, awards, gifts, and 
> public recognition, whether they wanted it or not. In the end, they were 
> proud of the recognition, if uncomfortable.
> 
> I've also been involved with bulletin boards, forums, chats, and other 
> online groups since, well, let's just say pre 1990 ;-). The majority of 
> these online groups had some kind of score card, usually measured by the 
> number of posts or length of time, or a combination of both.  WordPress 
> does similiar with "Member Since" which could easily be used under a 
> person's name on their posts. When I got high stars and increases in 
> titles without doing anything more than participating, no one said "Hey, 
> Lorelle, you're now at the 'head honcho' level and I resent that." It's 
> "earned" automatically or by moderator control and deserved. No one 
> argued about it. It recognized time and effort not power and control.

I can't claim much in the way of a background in non-profits and such,
but my experience with, and on rare occasion running, online communities
also goes back to the age of baud and bbs. During the late eighties and
early nineties I was on a number of local and national bulletin boards
(who knows, we may even have bumped into each other). I spent a year
moderating on Compuserve's Help Forum. I've managed a technical staff
for an ISP supporting thousands of users through private newsgroups. I
have helped out on literally scores of supports forums of all sizes and
temperaments, web-based and not. I'm not new to this.

Going back to the qualifications you listed, let me ask some questions
and make some observations, ones I'm not sure have been hit:

1. Have consistently over a period of time answered posts correctly in
the forums.

* Can you further define "consistent"?
* What is the period of time?
* Is some percentage of forum activity measured?
    * If not, why not?
    * If so, what's the percentage?
       * How is it evaluated?
       * Who evaluates it?

2. To have a sound knowledge of the Codex

* Do full answers count more than just providing a Codex link?
* What's the ruler used to measure this?

There are folk on the forums right now who dispense good to excellent
help, while they rarely to never refer or link to the Codex. If using
Codex in this way represents this knowledge, are they not to be
considered?

3. To have a sound knowledge of how WP works (Note - this is not code,
just the overall thing - if that makes sense)

I can dredge up volunteers who have one or two areas of expertise, yet
seem lost dealing with even basic WordPress questions. You're leaving
them out now.

4. Is trusted by their peers

* What steps are taken to insure objectivity with these "peers"?
* If I'm "consistent" and "correct" but not liked, I'm out? (This is
how many will interpret "trust"--get used to it.)
* If I fulfill 1, 2 and 3, what's the need of this requirement?

Now for a few that come afterward:

* What options does one have if they feel overlooked?
* What of those stripped of the "Volunteer" title? (it will happen)
    * What are the points of disqualification?
    * Who makes this decision?
    * Will the reasons be made public?
    * What methods of arbitration exist to regain it?

You'll think I'm trying to stir the pot, but these are the sort of
questions and concerns I recall--the least nonsensical and angry ones,
at least.

> Whether or not you personally believe there should be some kind of 
> hierarchy or class structure, it is CRITICAL that WordPress acknowledge 
> it's volunteers.  Give 'em all a t-shirt, publicly or individually thank 
> them, have a conference or giant annual meetup, or give them the title 
> of volunteer or whatever silly title you want to come up with.  People 
> continue because they get some kind of feedback from the process.  A 
> simple thank you is enough for some, or the joy of helping another, or 
> helping the code develop....or recognition that whatever you do, even if 
> it is a small thing like stuffing envelopes (metaphorically), earns the 
> title of volunteer.

And this is great. The idea of rewarding the dedicated, the helpful, the
"volunteers" is a good one, and ways we can do this definitely should be
pursued. I'm not against it. What I am against is introducing something
that can cause friction in an environment that is ripe for it. You're
thinking how to give back to the community in a way that benefits those
who are more than just users of the software. I'm thinking how to keep
the support forums free of the political. And bestowing honorary titles
upon a small group of members, even when it's with the purest of motives
and best of intentions, is a political move.

> People are already calling themselves by their group association.  
> Hackers are hackers, developers are developers, docs are the 
> Documenation team, #wordpress - well, they are still working on what 
> they are, but there are a few who want to be "something", so let them 
> develop the process of cohesion. If we title "ALL" of these folks as 
> Volunteers, then we will have Volunteer hacker, Volunteer developers, 
> Forum Volunteers, Documentation Volunteers, #wordpress Volunteers, and 
> so on. ALL VOLUNTEERS, all even, equal, but titled. As volunteers, all 
> have a voice in what happens with WordPress.

The key phrase is "People are already calling themselves..." And people
are already calling themselves volunteers. No one needed to knight them.
*They* chose it.

PLEASE see the difference here; it's an important distinction.

In the case of Developer or Codex Admin or what have you, these are not
honorary titles but marks of responsibility, displaying where one falls
in with all the behind the scenes workload. To restate something I said
the first time around: "real titles should be given only to those with
responsibility."

> The REAL reason behind the push to title volunteers as volunteers is the 
> promotion of WordPress is a VOLUNTEER organization, run by volunteers, 
> developed by volunteers and needing volunteers to continue. If it is not 
> and is moving towards a corporate structure, then you will have 
> different titles to contend with. But you will have and need titles 
> whether or not WordPress stays volunteer or not. Do it now and there 
> will be less fuss than when you do it after 1 million downloads. 
> WordPress needs to work together as a team and team members need to know 
> who the other team members are, who the key decision makers are, and the 
> public needs to know who they are too.

Exactly how is WordPress not seen as a "VOLUNTEER organization, run by
volunteers, developed by volunteers and needing volunteers to continue"?
I don't see anywhere on wordpress.org where this image is not constantly
reinforced.

As has been asked, what are we trying to fix here?

> I see the "structure" on the forum and the organization very simply.
> 
> 1. Maven/Moderator/Coordinator - the person overseeing the project's 
> coordination - the one you go to when there is a problem
> 2. Volunteer - an active contributor
> 3. Member - you signed up, this is your title.  Consider yourself a 
> member of WordPress. Do with it what you want. Benefits of membership: 
> free downloads and support for life.

I think I've been clear on which title in this hierarchy I believe
should remain, and which is not necessary.

> If Podz decides to step down as Maven, then he would become a volunteer, 
> just like everyone else.  Don't want the "title" of volunteer, then 
> don't accept it. But giving "Volunteer"more status, power, or agenda 
> than there is, well, is silly. WordPress needs to recognize volunteer 
> effort and labeling volunteers where we find them is the first step in 
> the process. Without volunteer effort, WordPress will die.

It's not the status you will give, but the status they will take on for
themselves, that will cause problems later on. As noted, WordPress is a
volunteer organization. And if there's one thing I'm certain of, it's
that there's a large population of WP users who take that view to heart.
You or me or Matt don't get to enforce what Volunteer means; they do.

> The easiest way to do this would be to change the "member" status in the 
> forum for EVERYONE now to volunteer and then let anyone who signs up 
> from here on out become a "member" and then establish the process of 
> promotion to "volunteer" which can be as simple as having posted 100 
> posts AND been on the forum for 3 months or through recommendation, or 
> whatever combination or process each group chooses to use to call 
> someone a volunteer.  If they show up three times, that can be good 
> enough.  If they spam, vandal, or cause problems, then block them, as is 
> currently done. No longer a member OR volunteer.  Set up simple 
> guidelines and make it easy to participate.

If getting the title "Volunteer" is as simple as replying N number of
times or N amount of months, then that at least is something that cannot
be broken down into the political. But even these have their issues,
and don't represent what you were after.

> Labeling volunteers is going to happen. They are the life blood of the 
> organization's continued existence.

Volunteers are already labeled. It's the attempt to codify it that I'm
resisting.

-Kaf

You see, long email replies are not foreign to me...