Should coordinators be able to kick out other coordinators?

Is this about the situation where one coordinator turns on the group and kicks out all the others, thereby taking over? Is this something people have actually experienced?

I have experienced this sort of 'rogue admin' problem, @alanna , on a popular facebook fan page. It wasn't just 'one rogue admin'-- it was a clique of several, who kicked out a bunch including me and the group's founder.

I've also read about many similar 'horror stories.'

It should be noted that on fb, the group's creator can't normally be removed as an admin, if they remain an admin at all times. However, it seems that their 'invulnerable' status disappears if they ever drop admin status, and then return to it later.

Many times better safe to regret

Not on Loomio but IRL. Interest group of 200 people, taken over by 3 people who self-elected & called themselves, 'the inner circle'. [sig warning sign of itself]

Together with handful of syncopates, used the (dispersed) 'authority' of the group to completely subvert (and ultimately destroy) the initial collective aspirations.

Fascinating case study to watch play out over many months. Sad though to see a valuable project (Democratic School) be systematically derailed.

So are people suggesting that no coordinator should be able to remove another, and the only way to remove coordinator status is to do it to yourself?

This is a decision the group could make. Why not use Loomio's consensus building power directly? Let the group discuss and vote on the issue?

There may be no nearly ideal solution, @alanna . There are definitely pros and cons to various options.

The worst problem of all-- a single rogue admin, who wipes everyone out before they realize what happened-- could definitely be fixed by requiring a 'second' for the removal of an admin. I guess that an admin removal request could be made to create notifications to all other admins, which they are able to click on to 'second' if desired.

Beyond that, it gets tricky because as I've indicated, these problems can involve cliques and in-fighting. (And, maybe it's okay if there's no technical treatment for those kinds of problems. If anything occurs to me, I'll share it.)

Again, why not let the group vote? The mechanism is obviously built into Loomio.

I'm not sure what you mean, @BenBurton . Group members and/or coordinators already have the ability, obviously, to raise proposals regarding the possible removal of admins-- but it seems to me that that'd be a huge social mess in many groups of people. And if any admin saw themselves possibly being removed in the near future, they might be tempted to kick all of the other admins out on the spot, and thus become a sole tyrant.

Am I missing something from your 'group vote' suggestion?

Have the admin status linked to the possible revocation based on a specific proposal. Click a button to revoke, a proposal is auto-generated and the results automatically revoke (or not) the status of an admin. @gregorycassel

Thanks for the explanation @BenBurton . I don't think that addresses my particular concerns regarding group dynamics. Do you mean that a proposal would be auto-generated and posted as a new group topic? Or that each member would receive a private message to vote?

I could imagine that it would take quite a while to resolve such a proposal, and even if the admin-in-question were somehow excluded from the procedure, I expect that they'd often hear about it. As I mentioned before, I'm concerned that if an admin were currently subject to such a proposal, they might just clean out the whole group to take it over for themselves. I.e., they could probably remove all other admins within a couple of minutes, and then they could remove anyone else anytime they felt like it.

Of course, one could imagine protesting such events to Loomio Cooperative, but I can hardly imagine that they'd want to get involved in such disputes. That wouldn't scale well with Loomio growth.

I would suggest a public discussion with a proposal to revoke the power of an admin. This platform is designed to handle that type of situation. Hopefully! @gregorycassel

@BenBurton , I guess that could work if Loomio changed the app so that admins can't be removed unless such a proposal passes. Obviously, few people would vote to remove themselves, so it couldn't depend on unanimous consent.

@BenBurton @gregorycassel Better explain my concern on this issue and I hope the translation with google translator is correct.

Loomio a user creates a new group, where there are defined rules of living together and also is the coordinator for being the first member of the group.

The group increases in membership by invitation or request membership.

Single coordinator.
Delete - according rules: The coordinator is the only one who can remove a member from the group does not meet the coexistence rules accepted by the user Loomio to integrate into the group.
Delete - dangerous: The coordinator is the only one who can remove any member of the group, personal interests to control the group.

Multiple coordinators
The single coordinator decides to trust other group members and appoints new coordinators.
Delete - according rules: Coordinators can remove a member who does not comply with the rules of behavior accepted by the user Loomio to integrate into the group.
Delete - according rules: A coordinator can eliminate another coordinator who does not comply with the rules of behavior.
Delete - dangerous: The coordinators can remove any member of the group, personal interests to control the group.
Delete - dangerous: A coordinator can eliminate the other coordinators, personal interests to control the group.
Delete - dangerous: A new coordinator, eliminates the coordinator who founded the group and this action, it can be a threat to the goals and objectives of the group.

Conclusions
Distrust: The possibility they happen 'Delete - dangerous' avoid the usual presence of multiple coordinators of a group. Therefore continues a coordinator.
Technical Power: Discussions, proposals and decisions of all members of the group, never exceeds the technical power that the coordinators to remove group members or other coordinators, pressing to remove.

As alluded to in a previous reply (Greg?), the issue is probably more systems based than technical capability.

As one who strongly values the 'Outlier' I am loathe to enable mechanisms for exclusion. At the same time, I acknowledge that there may be unfortunate situations where this is needed.

I would like to reference values based systems over rule based systems.

Rules/Laws/Procedures etc tend to get messy & legalistic when you try to create mechanisms to deal with every permutation of a notional situation. Usually, they end up removing legitimate rights of all individuals, for the sake of a few rogue elements. [as we are currently seeing in many countries now]

Complexity/Chaos Theory (never quite sure if they are same/diff) would seem to indicate that complex systems work best when based on very small number of simple rules. eg. complex flocking/swarm behaviour of animals postulated to be based on three simple rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_%28behavior%29

Values based systems tend to be far more adaptive to nuanced situations. (with the last resort option of rule enforcement)

I curate several online groups (past/present) where I am not involved with the groups per se. However I have sole/final admin rights over the groups as mentor/patriarch/elder.

A benign dictatorship, if you will. I only (& very rarely) intervene if something is going seriously amiss, usually a ethical issue. Intervention is usually a no more than a gentle 'nudge, cough or frown'.

The problem with creating legalistic/technical options for divisive situations is the level of engagement and the emotional energy investment involved. Usually, if matters are getting tense, only a very small number are emotionally invested beyond the immediate flareup.

Most members don't want to get involved in a messy situation and at best, become passive observers while the protagonists duke it out. Generally, they just shift their attention to somewhere else more productive.

It is this which allows the very few to subvert & control the resources of the many. Sometimes this is done very strategically with great cunning and hidden motivations. Much easier to control the 'vote' when few involved. This is a time-proven strategy for usurping control (& assets) for a longer term personal gain.

From a systems approach, I counsel groups to avoid accumulations of resources (financial, authority etc) which may become tempting targets for political appropriation. Better to keep these dispersed into collaborative networks - for resiliency, redundancy, agile path reconnection, avoid tactical hostile acquisition etc. But probably getting off topic here.

A few simple rules, wrapped up in shared value systems, with selected elders empowered with benign (but authoritative) intervention when necessary. Not surprising perhaps, this is very similar to the structure of many traditional indigenous societies.

Systems which persist for hundreds/thousands of years, generally exist for very good reasons.

@Gray , I perceive great harmony with your ideas on organization, and I'm working on related stuff. If you'd like to get in touch at all please feel free to shoot an email anytime, greg.cass1@gmail.com or connect at fb https://www.facebook.com/gscassel

(This is also a standing offer for other people, since Loomio has no user profile info yet. :) )

@carlosgallogaravan , I think I relate to most of the possibilities you're trying to express, but I must admit I am struggling with the google translator on this complex subject. I feel bad about that because your English (beyond the translator) is almost infinitely better than my Spanish!

Like @Gray , I tend to look for simplest possible rules or 'solutions'. I'm also hoping to find possibilities which which be easy to code, because I'm sure the Loomio coders already have endless stuff to do.

@gregorycassel original text in Spanish

Explicaré mejor mi preocupación sobre este tema y espero que la traducción con el traductor de google sea correcta.

Un usuario de Loomio crea un nuevo grupo, donde existen definidas unas normas de convivencia y además es el coordinador por ser el primer miembro del grupo.

El grupo aumenta en cantidad de miembros, mediante invitación o petición de membresía.

Coordinador único
Eliminar – según reglas: El coordinador es el único que puede eliminar a un miembro del grupo que no cumple con las normas de convivencia aceptadas por el usuario de Loomio al integrase en el grupo
Eliminar - peligroso: El coordinador es el único que puede eliminar a cualquier miembro del grupo, por intereses personales para controlar el grupo

Coordinadores múltiples
El coordinador único decide confiar en otros miembros del grupo y los designa como nuevos coordinadores
Eliminar – según reglas: Los coordinadores pueden eliminar a un miembro del grupo que no cumple con las normas de convivencia aceptadas por el usuario de Loomio al integrase en el grupo
Eliminar – según reglas: Un coordinador puede eliminar a otro coordinador que no cumple con las normas de convivencia.
Eliminar - peligroso: Los coordinadores pueden eliminar a cualquier miembro del grupo, por intereses personales para controlar el grupo
Eliminar - peligroso: Un coordinador puede eliminar a los otros coordinadores, por intereses personales para controlar el grupo
Eliminar - peligroso: Un coordinador nuevo, elimina al coordinador que fundó el grupo y esta acción, puede ser una amenaza contra las metas y objetivos del grupo

Conclusiones
Desconfianza: La posibilidad que sucedan ‘Eliminar - peligroso’ evitan la presencia habitual de coordinadores múltiples de un grupo. Por lo tanto continúa un coordinador.
Poder técnico: Las discusiones, propuestas y decisiones de todos los miembros del grupo, nunca supera el poder técnico que tienen los coordinadores para eliminar miembros del grupo o a otros coordinadores, pulsando en eliminar

I think this is raising some interesting ideas and I appreciate the thoughtful comments. Right now, development is still focused on groups collaborating in good faith (which is surprisingly challenging itself!)

I hope that in 2015 we'll get the chance to start designing more solutions for larger scale, more distributed groups, where issues like this are more likely to arise. There's a whole constellation of issues that come up when you start considering larger user numbers. I feel like we're overdue for a big workshop on feature design of tools for coordinators/moderators.

@alanna Yea!! Enspiral style retreat for Loomio. We'll come from all around the country! Sponsored airfares ofcourse..... :-)

@Gray awesome! We'll have "Loomcon" someday.

Probably needs dual workshopping. Tech & Social.

Lots of the issues raised in these forums relate to rewriting the tech enabled sociology of self-empowered communities.

Light-heartedness aside, eSocSci may actually be interested in hosting a project to aggregate much of the info presented here over the past few months? Just needs such a research proposal to be put together.

http://esocsci.org.nz/about/

Remember that risk also exists to removing group members, who are not coordinators.

@alanna I hope in 2015, it is important to know all the needs to work once.

@alanna , is it currently possible for any coordinator to remove the creator of the group?

Yes, the creator of the group can be removed. I had it happen. It was not malicious, but I was very unimpressed. After a short conversation with the controlling person I was soon re-established.

I think trust and understanding must play big parts. I think it would be good to have another access level, similar to the conversation on parent groups and then give the most trusted people this status.

@lbjoum similar discussion going on here: https://www.loomio.org/d/hwJpfkeN/parent-group-ability-to-remove-sub-group

I've designed a personal work-around for the potential problem of coordinators-gone-wild.

In any group(s) which are very important to me, I intend to only appoint most-trusted people to be coordinators. There may only be a few people who fit that bill, actually, for an ambitous group which is collectively bound to its founding principles, and/or any legitimate consensus decisions to reform those principles.

I think that 'only a few people' should suffice to handle all administrative tasks, because I'm oriented to the radical minimalization of personally concentrated authority. However, I'm acutely aware that all individuals have personal biases-- so, here's my work-around for bringing collective wisdom/learning into the administrative actions of the trusted few.

I plan to create a subgroup of 'trustees' to handle all 'judicial' administrative decisions. The parent group coordinators will only apply non-emergency coercive force (deletions and/or evictions) to other parent group members on the basis of consensus decisions among the subgroup of trustees.

This will allow a sizable subgroup of diverse people-- perhaps around 12 or so, like a jury-- to participate in a closely informed way on consensus-based judicial decisions, without giving all of them the coercive tools that parent group coordinators have. (On a related note, I've often found online group administrators to be somewhat confused and stressed about the 'weaponry' they constantly possess.)

I have a further related idea: perhaps all consensus-based subgroup judicial decisions will also require ratification by the entire parent group membership, by supermajority if not 100% consensus. If so, the subgroup should serve as an effective 'buffer' to allow the careful consideration of disciplinary matters, which may warrant some discretion and privacy, while remaining accountable to the whole.

@gregorycassel I like that idea. Also gets around the classic case of a user feeling like they've been wronged by a mod and having nowhere to go to appeal.

This particular formulation of the 'trustee' concept is new-ish, @alanna , but it reflects experiences in highly challenging and stressful online admin positions-- including the facebook fan page I mentioned before, which was taken over by a clique.

On a related note, I think of facilitation and administration (or coordination) as separate things, although both roles certainly can be done synergistically by the same person, particularly in small or simple groups. I like the idea of each group looking at perceived 'needed functions' creatively. For instance, some groups may really prefer for everyone to be empowered as co-equal facilitators, and others may be quite comfortable with one or more formally or informally designated facilitators, who may or may not also be coordinators.