Subject: Contemplation of Historian

From: "Chaos" <robin770@p...>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:49:49 -0500

I have become a bit concerned by the recent historian debate. I realize in
retrospect that we speak of the position as though Chuck isn't there. I am
as guilty as anyone else in doing this. It's like saying "Chuck shall
forever wear underwear the color blue" without ever approaching him on the
subject nor giving him a way out if he decides to do something different.
Perhaps we should think about this?

I think the idea of a historian is a good one, but I don't know if we should
automotically assign it to Chuck without asking him. Remember, a speaker
can't vote on a proposal, there is little he can do about it.

-Jen

Charles Henry
windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant

---

From: "Scott Morgan" <jands1@f...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:47:01 -0000

Hi All,
Just wanted to chime in on what Jen said. When I said I supported
Matt's proposal to make Chuck the Historian "forevermore", I didn't
mean to suggest that I was decreeing that Chuck must always be
Historian. I wanted to get a discussion going that gave Chuck the
power to do whatever he wanted. As I see it, we've just be trying to
make a provision in the world of the game that parallels the function
of webmaster that Chuck provides in the real world. I certainly don't
want to make him do anything he doesn't wish to do. As far as I am
concerned, Chuck will always have a say over what it takes to keep
this game going and, with that power, can decide if he wants to have
someone else run the site. 

What does everyone else think? As I interpret Matt's proposal (304),
it just gives Chuck a power he already has and I don't see it
affecting a future real world choice of his own volition to ask
someone else to run the site. Thoughts? 

-Scott

---

From: "Scott Morgan" <jands1@f...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:46:26 -0000

To All,
Earlier in the week I rose in support of Proposal 304. On the eve
of the final vote, I wish to note a change of heart. I still believe
that the Proposal is a good one, but one that needs to be improved.
It is clear that Chuck is not in favor of 304, so I cannot in good
judgment vote to enact something that will affect his duties in such
a way. I believe that we must find another way and so I must urge the
voters to vote down 304. Certainly nothing against Matt, but in
supporting the spirit of what Matt was attempting to do, I believe we
must find something that Chuck can support.

Thanks,
Scott