Spiff,

You asked for it buddy. . Here you go.

We can attempt to create criteria for a forum to be automatically labeled non-performing and be closed, but I think that would be a terrible mistake. That said I am all for the refinement of the list of fora, the content of the fora, and the organization of the fora. Naturally some will have to give way to others, or give up their place on the list if they become more noise than signal either by impartial measurement or human assessment.

As I have watched and participated in a few conversations on this topic of late I have become increasingly convinced that we need to stop trying to recreate the wheel and go with what works. By this I mean we must stop trying to come up with meaningful metrics that cause automatic closure. All metrics I have see discussed so far are at best value judgment based. Not so solid of a reason to have that be the basis for automatic existence cessation.

So what does work? Well what works is policing of things by the people. What works is having a duly elected body of representatives to field our recommendations. What works is having those representatives’ interpretation and final choice stand until such time as the issue is revisited by a similarly created body of representatives with the authority to decide differently and replace previously made decisions. Well it works in the US (my home turf) and that is a new place based on a lot of much older places where it works more or less according to the same guiding ideas and I think we really need to realize that we have a position of luxury in that we can choose the best of the best in terms of rules that have been tried and tested.

So what am I proposing? Well I believe that the following procedure should take place if a forum is to be closed:

1. A recommendation to look at a forum as one which should be considered for closure.

This recommendation could come from any FT member to any TB member and the TB could then decide whether to have a vote to consider the forum for closure. If such a vote were, in the opinion of the TB, considered to be in the best interest of the membership of FT, the vote would proceed according to the rules in place. The content of the vote would be to close or not. If TB decided the issue raised was of such a nature that it warranted more time to make a better decision, a vote could be held to create a deadline by which a second vote, a vote on closure would occur.

2. If a forum were to receive a deadline vote (e.g. 6 months from the date of the vote before being examined again), he discussion thread would be closed and FT members would be expected to give it the fair chance they would expect of for a they might support themselves. The goal would be to allow the forum to thrive or not in a real environment.

3. If a vote were held on whether to close a forum and the vote was affirmative to do so, the forum would be closed with existing threads moved to places that the moderators agreed.

4. The forum vote result would be final both in the case of a defined holding period or in the case of closure.

5. If the vote is against closing it, the forum would be able to go on without being brought up for closure again for at least another year.

I see all of the above as very important because they mean we would trust the better judgment of those we voted into positions of authority to decide for us. We would, as the rules allow, have a chance for a week or so to discuss it openly. Ultimately however I believe it is the duty of the FT membership to support the system of government in place. This is not a democracy. This is Randy’s house and he said we could have a TB and therefore we need to play according to those rules. We do have great latitude in that we can comment, we can attempt to cause a forum to be rejuvenated, we can contribute ourselves. What we cannot do, as individuals, is decide that what is best for us is what is best for the group. It usually works the other way around.

So in a nutshell, I am suggesting or trying to communicate a suggestion of a system that allows anybody and everybody to discuss with the TB what they think should happen, and then they allow the TB to consider it during which time all can comment. Finally the membership must allow the TB to interpret the various input including number of posts, noise to signal ratio, status quo or merging, and a bunch of other yardsticks to decide to close, extend the existence temporarily, or give stamp approval to a forum. We hired these folks for a job and this is part of it. They have to be allowed to know their decisions will be trusted and in if we do that I believe they will feel and act upon a greater sense of responsibility leading to better decisions than if we create metrics to force actions on issues that may be more gray than black and white.