Moving beyond the list mom…

Okay, I think I have it figured out…

Okay, I think I have it figured out. But first, a digression.

On the list-managers list today, we got into a discussion of admin responsibilities, becaues it was (evidently) time for the two-or-three-times-a-year argument that admins ought to stay out of things and let users take care of themselves, followed by the typical rebuttals.

I tried to describe how I viewed it in a different way than I have in the past:


If you are managing a group of some sort, your responsibility is to make decisions in a way that when the needs/interests of the group are in conflict with the needs/interests of an individual in that group, the group's needs/interests take precedence.

There are always individuals that have trouble with that concept, assuming or demanding that they be the center of the universe, or at least be catered to. Unless the group is *about you*, any group of size > 2 is about building a consensus compromise among the members so things work as well as possible for as many as possible. Any individual who can't/won't accept that compromise isn't really part of the group, and is a destructive force on the group.

Some users don't like not being the center of the universe, and generally blame the admin for having to point out that reality. It's part of the job. But the primary responsibility of the admin is to make sure the group flourishes, not that it caters to the needs of every individual who wants to be part of the group. Not all individuals are going to fit into the group. that's pure human nature, and making these groups virtual doesn't change that reality (although we sure tried, didn't we?)

To push an analogy into an unrecognizable form to make a point, the group admin is the sheepdog; the wolf has just told the sheepdog had has no right to interfere with his interactions with the sheep, because the wolf didn't attack the sheepdog directly.

I, as sheepdog, don't particularly care what the wolf's attitude towards this is. Which tends to piss off the wolves, but I'm only interested in keeping the sheep happy.

I don't care, as long as you don't cause problems for the group. If you follow the rules set out for the group, and I don't get complaints, then things are fine. And under most circumstances, even if you don't fully follow the rules and I don't get cmoplaints, things are still fine. But when I start getting complaints....

On a purely pragmatic level, if my group gets a reputation for being a place where people are harrassed and abused and nobody does anything about it -- my group dies. Everyone leaves and goes somewhere safer. Except the trolls and wolves.

Someone has to be the mommy. Groups that don't have that tend to turn into Lord of the Flies, or an empty lecture hall with the doors open to the weather.

Greg Wood immediately keyed on the problem with this description, the one that almost kept me from using it.


I know what you meant here, and of course this paragraph was pulled out
of context. But if you really only allowed sheep on your lists, I'd be
gone, because they would be very boring.

My discussion was oriented around the concept of herd (or pack, or pride, or….) and its tender. And Greg immediately caught the subtext of users as sheep and focussed on the docility that using the sheep seemed to imply. And he’s right. That’s a flaw in using this particular analogy, one I knew going in but didn’t see an easy way around to make the point I was trying to make. And it’s one that can potentially sidetrack the entire discussion if you let it.

Don’t let anyone tell you words have no power. Which is why, of course, I’m so focussed on phrases like list mom. Because it sums up in a mental vision what you’re trying to get across, and if you use the wrong term or build into it unintended side-effects, you can really, really screw up what you intend to do. That’s why stuff like this matters….

And I emphasized that in my response to Greg…


and that was the exact reason I argued with myself over using that example, because I knew the sheep image would conflict with the point I was trying to get across... Because you're exactly right, if we were in fact talking about sheep. More generally, I'm talking about animals that share a common interest (herd/pack/pride/etc), and a protector of that herd against someone who is in conflict with the herd. The specific animal doesn't matter, and sheep is a particularly negative image, but I just couldn't think of a better one to use the image I wanted to get across. But I *knew* someone would react exactly this way, too, because I did. And you're right.

Greg: I'd be gone, because they would be very boring. Wolves are frequently more interesting than sheep.

only as long as you're watching them hunt down someone OTHER than you. that's a "view from the sidelines" view. If you're dinner, then it stops being interesting really fast. You, like me, should understand the implications of that rather well....

The point made here is if you look at the flock (ignoring what it’s a flock of), the administrator is the caretaker of the flock. At a macro level, this person creates and maintains the meadow the flock lives in and works to keep the flock together and safe from wolves (and if a wolf pulls an animal out into the forest, the shepard doesn’t say ‘not in the meadow any more, not my problem’). But at the same time, the shepard doesn’t tell the flock where to go or when to eat or what to play. The flock works that out for themselves.

Anyway, that’s the digression. And probably most of this entry…

But what finally clicked in what I’ve been searching for the last ten days or so was a piece in the new (September 2003) Fast Company (links to current pieces not yet available….). It’s the only business magazine I still read regularly, and this issue is full of interesting stuff. In an article on the Les Schwab Tire company, they used the phrase cult of the customer — and it crystalized a lot of the things I’ve been trying to come to terms with internally.

But not directly, but because of how it plays off the phrase I’ve been fighting with: the customer is always right.

See, the customer is not always right. That phrase ignores a basic fact of life. But to create a customer-centric environment, you have to empower the customer to feel free Do Their Thing without constantly staring over their shoulders looking for lightning bolts — but you still need to find some way to protect the interests of the owners as well. And basically, that tradeoff is…

We reserve the right to refuse service…

so very simple a concept, once I realized what I was looking for. Painfully obvious, in retrospect.

So the trick is to create an environment where people understand what’s expected of them as far as limits to their behavior, and then get out of the way unless they violate those limitations.

the user has the right to use a service in the way that makes them happy as long as the owner gives them access to the service.

the owner has the right to refuse to allow a user to use a service if the way they use it is against the owner’s wishes.

the owner has the responsibilty to deineate those rules and restrictions as simply and understandably as they can, and an implied responsibility to not set unneccessary and arbitrary restrictions.

users have the responsibilty to accept and abide by restrictions or not use the service.

And like the person who refuses to turn off the boom box in the restaurant when asked, users that won’t accept the rules will find themselves escorted off the premises, to prevent them from ruining the dining of the rest of the customers.

The group is more important than the individual. And the individual that does not accept that is not welcome in the group….

This may all seem rather simplistic, but it’s a matter of understanding where I want the lines drawn in the sane, and the checks and balances needed to create the environment and attitudes I want to promote.

And now that I know where those checks and balances exist, I can actually get this thing moving forward and finished…

You might also want to read:

  1. Moving beyond flickr   My post last week on Whither Flickr? got picked up by some other blogs and generated some interesting feedback and comments. Almost all of...
  2. About “the list” So I got out for a couple of hours of birding on Sunday, my first of the year. I ended up down in Coyote Valley...
  3. Moving into the offseason well, it’s now the off-season. Time for all of us hockey geeks to take a breather, relax, and wait for something interesting to happen. Not....
  4. Moving back to canada…. HockeyNation: Explain to us again, why the NHL can’t return to Canada? A few weeks ago I put forward my frequently espoused theory that the...
  5. The List Mom is Dead! Long Live the, um….. As I’ve been mullling over rewriting FAQ and Rules for the lists and the site, I’ve had to take a step back and I’ve realized...