Projects making themselves managers without present manager contact?

Question

I do not feel it appropriate for Projects to appoint themselves co-managers of profiles, without at least trying to contact the present managers. I recently un-managed several of my created profiles when the were suddenly and without contact co-manged by new "Projects". Are other fine with others becoming managers without so much as a by your leave?

Comments

Curious: Why did you remove yourself? I know that on projects I co-lead, where the project co-manages a profile, I really appreciate active co-managers. I wish there were more active co-managers.

---

In my experience "people" who would make a manager change, without so much as a contact before hand are not going to be good collaborators. I have lots of profiles to manage anyways, so I will find it helpful to let them do these profiles.

---

It seems the larger problem isn't one of co-management, but, rather, that a project added itself without even bothering to pre-contact the then current Profile Manager.  That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of collaboration.

---

Alan, I understand that has been your experience, it hasn't been mine. 

Melanie, The thing about project co-management, is that it's tied to project boxes and profile protection, so adding a project as co-PM is most often an administrative task. Requiring prior approval adds additional steps, additional tracking and follow-up, and additional time, during which the profile is at risk and many such requests would fall through the cracks.

But I am seeing and appreciating the difference of opinion here. I wonder if there is a happy medium somewhere?

---

I think Projects should be held to the same standard of courtesy as any member, regardless of workload.

---

@ Jillaine -- I'm not sure Alan was asking that a project ask approval before adding itself, but that the project at least communicate before doing so that the intent is to do so.  Being suddenly faced with a fait accompli would, I presume, make one feel as though one didn't matter.

Answer 1

Like some others who have responded, I welcome it when a Project becomes a manager of a profile I have created or managed myself. I do not feel elbowed out in any way, nor am I upset if there is no prior consultation.

I would expect Projects to put explanatory comments on profiles when they add themselves as profile managers or add Project protection.

There are times when Project protection needs to be added fast to safeguard the integrity of information on WikiTree. Project protection requires a Project to become a profile manager.

In other circumstances, where quick protection is not needed, how far it may be appropriate to consult existing managers, as opposed to just notifying them, depends partly on the nature of the Project.

Looking at the Projects I lead, I would not expect a Project like the Magna Carta Project to seek permission from profile managers before adding itself as a manager: the nature of the Project means that it seeks to manage profiles in lines of descent from Magna Carta barons to Gateway Ancestors. The Project would, though, put an explanatory comment on the profile. There are other Projects in a similar position.

For the Quakers Project, on the other hand, where there were existing active profile managers I would put a comment on the profile saying I would like to add the Project as a manager, explaining why, and then give the existing managers a little time to respond or object (I have never yet had an objection). If the existing profile managers have been inactive for a considerable time, I might not do this, instead just adding the Project as manager with an explanation.

My general experience is that usually profile managers are pleased when Projects - including Projects I lead - seek to co-manage a profile.

Comments

Perfect response, Michael.  You said everything that I had hoped to (and more).

(Edited to clarify.)

---

Thank you Michael, As I see it, projects want to help manage profiles and protect the profiles from a multitude of mistakes by monitoring changes. The two projects I help co-manage encourage others to ask to be added to the trusted list to help improve the profile and monitor changes, but really, the rules don't change just because a profile is co-managed by a project. Any open profile can be edited by others. Important changes should be discussed beforehand. Projects don't make changes--individuals do.

---

I would call adding a manager an important change, that should be discussed beforehand.  Just my opinion.

---

I have seen projects Protect a profile and add themselves as a PM, usually for a reason associated with merges or invalid relationships being made over again.  Unfortunately, if the project waits for a PM to give permission to do that, incorrect parents, children or name changes can be made, which damages the tree again.

Answer 2

I welcome it. I view it as just extra eyes to watch over the profile and a potential heavy-weight ally if there is a conflict over the profile. Definitely more comfortable, however, if you have a positive working history with the project leaders.

Answer 3

I would find it rather strange if the power to add a project to profiles in used without contact first. But basically by removing yourself you say: okay. I can't imagine any bad intentions here.

Have you asked the enthusiastic Wikitreer who added the project as manager for their reason?

Answer 4

First contacting the current profile manager seems to be in the spirit of  "collaboration".  Even if  they are only  "notifying" the profile manager of the change, not asking permission.

I too would welcome the  "extra eyes"  as Chase mentioned!