I was totally behind the premise until she referenced her Code of Conduct[0] and I saw this tucked-away in it: "I do reserve the right to boot anyone out for any reason"
That, to me, comes across as conducive to an authoritarian atmosphere and not a community atmosphere.
You can dress it however you wish but having a Code of Conduct and then saying it matters not, when you arbitrarily feel like it, is the antithesis of the entire premise of fostering a community atmosphere, in the first place, yeah?
Why not just be honest and have that single statement and be done with it? Afer all, you are the be-all and end-all of the group, it's code, the decision-making, and subsequent results, yeah?
I see that single sentence as the default starting point for any small group. The preceding sentences serve as clarification and additional guidance/assurance of intent, but if in a small group (book club) setting you wish to explicitly disclaim the ability to boot anyone for any reason, you end up having to create a lengthy and still-gameable set of rules, itself a book-authoring exercise.
>I see that single sentence as the default starting point for any small group.
This is a valid point of view, in the sense of coming from the perspective of group ownership. "I own this thing and I decide what happens in it or will protect it or what happens to it or what direction it goes in or etc. ad infinum."
I think this is an entirely different notion than a community perspective, in which no one seeks flat-out ownership or determination (by and solely derived from themselves).
Whilst this latter posit might be hard (if not nigh impossible) to implement in small groups, I think it comes down to the approach: The dynamic changes determined upon if its of the individual's interest or if its of the group's interest.
This is because its recognised that the individual ego doesn't foster community growth - however subdued it might come across - because (in an actual community, such as here in HN) the group dynamic isn't interested in things like individual ownership and explicit individual control of anything.
For example, we do not come here (to HN) because one voice posts or one narrative predominantly prevails over another. In fact, some of us come here in lieu of other sites (such as /r/) precisely because we recognise that only being exposed to a single narrative that aligns with 'x' isn't conducive to any growth, in either the community or the individual.
In other words, I don't have to agree with you for us to exchange ideas and/or learn and grown from our differing perspectives. Couple that with the fact that your or my viewpoint isn't going to get the entire discussion thrown under the bus (as long as we're being civil about it).
>The preceding sentences serve as clarification and additional guidance/assurance of intent, but if in a small group (book club) setting you wish to explicitly disclaim the ability to boot anyone for any reason, you end up having to create a lengthy and still-gameable set of rules, itself a book-authoring exercise.
True but you're muddying the waters. The single sentence should be first and the rest should follow subsequently because that single sentence explicit infers that it can happen, even if the person in question is the embodiment of the Code of Conduct. All that has to happen is that the organiser has a valid reason (to themselves) to justify booting the person.
The community, as it were, can do nothing about it and it's tucked away in the Code of Conduct that they've all agreed to, yeah?
So, whilst it may come across as a surprise and/or the community might feel the exact opposite about what's happened, you start delineating the whole precept between individual wants versus group wants.
This is when you get off-shoot splinter groups because they don't agree with what 'x' group leader[s] did. It's a story as old as time and we keep repeating it because we fall into the same traps over and over and over and over and over again.
Put succinctly: If the individual supercedes the group (no matter who it is but, in this case, it's almost always the organiser), then what you have isn't a community in the true sense of the word. You've formed a group around an authoritative figure under the auspices of it being a community.
Take a look at any communities around the internet and you'll see the individual dies-away (in the authoritative sense) when true community is the first and foremost priority. Ubuntu's Code of Conduct[0] would be a good example of this. Their Appeals Process for IRC[1] also demonstrates that they're concerned with the community perspective over the individual. "Did Skyler eject you because you made in typo in English? Well, that's not quite fair..."
If you want to foster community (proper-like), you should start fostering the community for the sake of the community (and not the sake of the individual) from the onset.
Suffice to say, we will probably not agree on this and I'm sorry for typing a novel in response. I'll shut up, now. :)
I suspect we largely agree (and no need to apologize for a lengthy on-topic reply, of course) in the sense that I can't find any significant point of disagreement above. In fact, the idea that if I kick Bob out of "sokoloff's book club" and the rest of the group prefers Bob to be there, then a parallel book club naturally arises that includes Bob, the other members, and "not sokoloff". That's what the community can and should do in response to an other-than-benevolent dictator.
That, to me, comes across as conducive to an authoritarian atmosphere and not a community atmosphere.
You can dress it however you wish but having a Code of Conduct and then saying it matters not, when you arbitrarily feel like it, is the antithesis of the entire premise of fostering a community atmosphere, in the first place, yeah?
Why not just be honest and have that single statement and be done with it? Afer all, you are the be-all and end-all of the group, it's code, the decision-making, and subsequent results, yeah?
[0] - https://pastebin.com/6kA93uPV