You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: On the management of Gridcoin's social media and public image

in #gridcoin • 6 years ago

Very interesting and informative. You also give several hints on how to improve Gridcoin community and in particular, twitter team. There are however some inconsistencies.

Few contributors available instead of many

A significant issue we faced on a number of occasions in the official-social-media channel was being unable to post critical security or network issues in a timely manner, due to only having two people with posting abilities

@vortac 's poll if successful will add two new members, thus team would expand, not contract.

Section 4 - The channel’s fallout

The primary issue that plagues this group is a lack of content. [...] the channel recently lost two members [...] this was effectively the final nail in the coffin

You point to several problems within the twitter team, but contrary to given evidence, in conclusions you disprove those problems:

Basically, if it ain’t broken, don’t break it.

Conclusions:

  • team needs to work according to agreed rules
  • team members need to live in different time zones
  • fast lane required for urgent security updates
6 years ago in #gridcoin by
$0.00
    1 vote
    Reply 4
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago 

    You're right in some of your observations. My post is 10 pages long and it looks like I lacked clarity on a couple things that I overlooked in proofreading. I'll try to address them:

    • Even at our peak, when we had 2 active OPs with posting abilities (jringo and CM), we still experienced these communication delays with getting content out the door.
    • The observation is that the number of active members being involved in the content vetting process would be reduced from the current 5 down to 2.
    • Breaking the system is what I would attribute to a Twitter admin abandoning the content vetting group and posting content of his choosing. Basically what I mean is, don't break the system that had worked well, and then point at its broken state as evidence for it needing to be changed.
    [-]
     6 years ago 

    we had 2 active OPs with posting abilities (jringo and CM)

    Jringo isn't an OP.

    The observation is that the number of active members being involved in the content vetting process would be reduced from the current 5 down to 2.

    It's now increased from 5 to hundreds given that it's now a public process.

    Breaking the system is what I would attribute to a Twitter admin abandoning the content vetting group and posting content of his choosing.

    The Steemit & Whaleshares polls passed, authorizing posting of such content. The micromanaged voting mechanism failed to be productive, It was never mandated for any other social media presence.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       6 years ago 

      To clarify since I caught this as you posted:

      This proposal would reduce the team size from 8 to 2. This proposal would give access to someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want oversight or collaboration.

      The group was working fine until someone pushed other folks out. That is what anon is talking about.

      [-]
       6 years ago (edited)

      This proposal would reduce the team size from 8 to 2.

      There has never been 8 people on the Twitter account, don't spread false numbers. By your logic with the channel now public there are 130+ members now 👌

      The group was working fine until someone pushed other folks out.

      Team effort all around.

      $0.27
      • Past Payouts $0.27, 0.00 TRX
      • - Author $0.20, 0.00 TRX
      • - Curators $0.07, 0.00 TRX
      1 vote
      Reply

      Coin Marketplace

      STEEM 0.16
      TRX 0.15
      JST 0.028
      BTC 54260.52
      ETH 2284.10
      USDT 1.00
      SBD 2.30