| |
This note is from Kelly McKiernan, Larry Pieniazek, Lenny Hoffman, Tim
Courtney, and Frank Filz.
There's been a bit of conversation about the reasons behind these members
discontinuing admin duties here at LUGNET. Rather than posting a huge
discussion about it, we would like to present these salient points.
- Lack of progress against the plan of record.
- Lack of crispness in executing administrivia that only Todd or Suz can do
(password resets, processing members, changing meta-admin things and so on).
- Lack of strong public support as we attempted to help guide LUGNET during
times of stress and upheaval.
- Lack of articulation of desired changes in plan/approach/documents,
leading to confusion on the team.
- Incomplete and contradictory goals and methods of administration from the
site owners.
In short, individually and as a group, we no longer felt that our presence as
administrators was adding value to LUGNET or its membership. Each of us
continues to work toward individual and community goals, and we all continue to
believe in the fundamental power of LUGNET. Those of us acting as curators or
working on the sets database intend to continue in those roles. We'll continue
posting as members and doing what we can to help LUGNET and the LEGO community
flourish.
We would like to thank Todd and Suzanne for the opportunity to participate
in the LUGNET Transition Team and site administration, and we sincerely wish
the best for LUGNET, its membership, and its future.
Sincerely,
Tim Courtney
Frank Filz
Lenny Hoffman
Kelly McKiernan
Larry Pieniazek
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> We would like to thank Todd and Suzanne for the opportunity to participate
> in the LUGNET Transition Team and site administration, and we sincerely wish
> the best for LUGNET, its membership, and its future.
I would like to personally add my name to this. I respect what Suz and Todd
have done very much. I love Lugnet, and I hope that it continues to be an
important LEGO site.
If anyone would like to contact me personally to talk more about why I (we)
stepped down, you are free to do so at lenny.hoffman at gmail.com
-Lenny
|
|
| |
Kelly,
I'm disappointed you resigned. However, I'm also rather disappointed [you]
posted this rather divisive message... it smacks of attention seeking to me. I
would have thought you and Frank were above this sort of thing.
To be perfectly honest, I had assumed you had all "resigned" as one (or more) of
you was about to be booted!
So did you jump? Were you pushed? Or were you dragged down by the others? ;)
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur wrote:
> Kelly,
> I'm disappointed you resigned. However, I'm also rather disappointed [you]
> posted this rather divisive message... it smacks of attention seeking to me.
I'm also disappointed about the need for our resignations. It was done in the
best interest of LUGNET and the community, though, and not really because of any
personal animosity or anything. Having five people resign at once (although two
had basically retired previously) was cause enough for explanation to the LUGNET
community. We all felt we owed that to everyone.
> To be perfectly honest, I had assumed you had all "resigned" as one (or more) of
> you was about to be booted!
Not to my knowledge.
> So did you jump? Were you pushed? Or were you dragged down by the others? ;)
Pretty much as stated in my first message... I know I felt that I was not adding
value, and I believe most of the others felt the same way. Overall, we felt that
our presence was no longer part of the solution, and LUGNET is too important for
us to be part of the problem. There was no one incident, or any ultimatums or
things of that nature. Pretty drama-free, in fact. But each of us felt it was
the right thing to do.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Kelly,
I’m disappointed you resigned. However, I’m also rather disappointed you
posted this rather divisive message... it smacks of attention seeking to me.
|
I’m also disappointed about the need for our resignations. It was done in the
best interest of LUGNET and the community, though, and not really because of
any personal animosity or anything. Having five people resign at once
(although two had basically retired previously) was cause enough for
explanation to the LUGNET community. We all felt we owed that to everyone.
|
I agree. The post was informative and, as far as I can tell, accurate. The
summary of problems is invaluable by providing an objective map of trouble spots
moving forward. Although the team’s work wasn’t completely fruitful as
originally outlined, we now have a real record of what can go wrong.
As for how things “went down”, Kelly’s right. Things are okay. If anything, I
bungled communications a bit by being overly emotional, and by not acting in a
proceedurally respectful way.
But thanks, Scott. I’m glad you spoke up because I’d hate for you or others to
go on with an inaccurate perception.
...Yo Man, it’s kool. It’s kool.
-Suz
|
|
|
