Standardization of admin removal

I think it's in everyone's interest to address this, and to have a process of doing such things in the future. Up until now this has been a position that has generally only been lost due to egregious action, inactivity, or stepping down. There hasn't been much accountability for the work we put in and more specifically its quality. I think this will help address removing people for those reasons.

The proposal:

The admin is given a one month probationary period
- Evidence for/against the probationary period can be posted in a thread
- The necessity of the probationary period is then decided on by all of the admins/above/engineers through a non-public poll added to the thread

The outcome of the probationary period is decided on by all of the admins/above/engineers after one month
- Evidence for/against that admin's removal can be posted
- The outcome of the probationary period, staying on or being removed, is then voted on through a non-public poll

This should accomplish a couple of things: 1.) Everyone is given a chance to speak up 2.) It is clear what's on the line and what's going to happen and 3.) Everyone has an equal vote.

It also has its drawbacks. Someone has to create the thread to start the process, which isn't as easy as it sounds. Also, there's no guarantee that people will vote just on the evidence, there could always be alliances and ulterior motives.

Keep in mind that this isn't the only way an admin can or will be removed.


Any thoughts or changes are encouraged.

This sounds good Phrozen.

"It also has its drawbacks. Someone has to create the thread to start the process, which isn't as easy as it sounds. Also, there's no guarantee that people will vote just on the evidence, there could always be alliances and ulterior motives.

Keep in mind that this isn't the only way an admin can or will be removed."

I think all of us are mature enough to open discussion with each other and use an even thought process.
(Meaning, not bring in the whole alliances/ulterior motives thing. I'm not quite sure what the ulterior motives would be- but understand the alliances bit.)
Maybe we should have one thread where we discuss this type of thing rather than starting a "This thread is created b/c so and so is imo not cutting it" - If we had one thread where we brought the process you have laid out here and were able to bring our issues to, then that would cut out anyone's hesitation to starting a thread about an individual.

I think posting an individual thread about a single person is actually a really important component of this process--its self-limiting because a person has to feel strongly enough to publicly make a thread. I think it would limit abuse of the policy.

I had a similar thought in mind, but was intending to extend it to smod level, in part because they need to know what expectations will be of them should they want to jump to admin position, and in part because they can provide a non-admin view of admin performance and expectations. I'll go either way - keep it admin only for a bit or roll out to all sr. staff, it's up to you guys. The heart of what I was thinking is having staff collectively lay out their expectations of themselves, and by extension their peers. If we can reach a consensus of that expectation, it's easier to use that as a standard to which everyone is measured rather than a case by case grey area assessment that becomes too subjective.

Reading this thread, I agree a person-specific thread is probably better in that it keeps the discussion focused and less wishy-washy. I was going to offer myself as a means of getting such person-specific threads posted, but I'm also trying to put the onus on sr. staff to hold one another accountable rather than having someone else in that 'daddy' position. I can do it (reluctantly), but to look 5 yrs our when I might not be here, a stable staff environment needs one that can sustain itself without relying on a 'daddy' role. The staff need to operate together and be willing to agree on expectations, and who isn't meeting them.

If I'm reading the proposal correctly, this isn't a probationary period upon joining the admin, it's a probationary period that is launched when someone feels strongly enough to call another admin to the table for accountability. I'm okay with that, though I'm almost inclined to cut it down to 2 weeks in an effort to not let things drag out. If I were called out, I'd know within a week at most if I was going to change how I was operating or say fuck it and quit. And that's part of my concern, people feel attacked ... but again, the expectation is that we're at this level because we accept the responsibility and expectations of the role. If I feel what I'm doing is good enough, but others don't, I need to maturely assess if it is in me to change my expectations to match theirs and my performance as well, or do I need to step aside and let someone else tackle it. At this point in our site staffing and the way things have gone of late - I am fully in support of making an effort to create an evaluation system and start shining a light on performance that doesn't align with what the site needs. We can't afford to 'look the other way' any more.

Is *this* (probationary system) the solution? I can't say, but it's a start - and we need to start somewhere. I'm for it.

Was/Is there somewhere it is laid out simply the expectations of Admin?
Or would we be creating things as we go?

I'm fine with creating threads individually.

I have a few questions that may seem kind of silly-
How many chances would we give before creating such a thread? (Meaning, Pming and discussing elsewhere)
I feel like once a person has reached Sr Staff they should (not be given a pass by ANY means) but be a trusted member who we aren't QUICK to get rid of. Yes, each Sr Staff member should be held to a higher standard, but at the same time, most are chosen b/c they've dedicated a lot to BL, been good FOR BL, and are trustworthy. (This isn't EVERYONE on Sr Staff but many) and I do feel they should be given more than one chance unless the offense is very serious.

So, when would be the appropriate time to start this process?
After how many attempts at creating change in a different way?
The poll option, it would be what "Bye-bye"/ "Stay"/"Give another chance" ?

I don't want this to come off like a dismissal- b/c it isn't by any means.
I think this is a fantastic idea.
I think it is a much needed idea. I just want to be clear on all of it......

If I'm reading the proposal correctly, this isn't a probationary period upon joining the admin, it's a probationary period that is launched when someone feels strongly enough to call another admin to the table for accountability. I'm okay with that, though I'm almost inclined to cut it down to 2 weeks in an effort to not let things drag out.

Yeah. That's how it would be launched. A shorter time is good, since you're right, one should know. But, it's also easier to fake interest in a shorter period...

How many chances would we give before creating such a thread? (Meaning, Pming and discussing elsewhere)

That's up to the person creating the thread and presenting the evidence, and ultimately up the vote. There's a bit of leeway, but if the evidence is weak, the probation period won't be put in place. But, if that person comes up with pm conversations about issues that haven't been resolved and further proof...
There are two votes. One to enter the probation period and one at the end of the probation period deciding that person's fate.

So, when would be the appropriate time to start this process?

As soon as it's ironed out and agreed upon. Hopefully before BL starts up again.

After how many attempts at creating change in a different way?

See above, it's assumed that other avenues such as PM's have been used. If not, it probably won't go through with votes.

The poll option, it would be what "Bye-bye"/ "Stay"/"Give another chance" ?

No, there's no "give another chance" if we're at this point, since other chances were supposedly given already.

--------------------------------------
I think we need to figure out how many probationary periods each person is allowed to. Thoughts?

I think that this is a good idea.

I'm also in agreement that each person this will pertain to should be addressed in their own thread. I think that it will deter people from throwing people under the bus needlessly. It will force people to come up with some really valid and strong reasons on why a person will be removed.

I agree with phrozen in that a month should be the probationary period, someone could easily step it up for a week or two before falling back into the shadows. I think a month would give a decent look (with some sort of longevity) at someones performance.

I do believe that we need better definitions of both the sr mod role and the admin role. I think there is a bit of ambiguity and I'm hoping that we can start cleaning up these definitions with the thread that I started in sr staff on BL proper. I think it's important to recognize what people perceive their roles to be and what they perceive the other roles to be (sr staff to admin and admin to sr staff).