 | | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) There's no faulting flowing from this direction, merely a statement that there's a problem at the user's end. (...) Sorry, why not? I'm not clear on that really. If a user has a malformed or malfunctioning mail, why isn't that the user's issue (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Is that really a problem? I agree at some point *you* may wish to stop arguing, but why ask everyone else to? I think the problem with saying "The decision stands, we don't see the point of people discussing further" (or in fact ANY way of (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Well, as long as it was Scott, it was easy enough to disregard. It was just Scott, after all, noted button pusher. But when we get this mistrust from people we used to respect before they wigged out, or people we still do want to respect for (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) I don't know? Be aware that your emails might not be getting where you send them, and not fault the user for it? It's STILL not the users' issue to solve. (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Yeah, I don't believe this. The LPRV is a great example. The Admins gathered a group of people and said, we trust you guys! We want to know what you think! And then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started accusing the Admins of creating a (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Wow. You're right Ross, that is worded much better. That reminds me, I probably shouldn't be posting this right now without my lawyer being present. There might be some minor misunderstanding that prompts endless accusations at my character (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) What, you haven't been reading all two hundred posts over the past few days and the four hundred emails discussing how best to respond. (...) Well thanks Chris. Maybe you could tell us what that 'something' is that you're waiting for? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) OK. But it isn't set up NOW, is it? If so, what then? (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) I'd recommend setting it up so it'll work then. I can think of a few ways to do this. However, it doesn't change the point that it's up to LUGNET to make sure the admins can send email to users, assuming the user has actually provided a valid (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legends of Todd
|
|
(...) Rosa Parks did what she did because the establishment was not interested in hearing her voice. Lugnet Admins, on the other hand, have always be interested in hearing the voices of all members and users of Lugnet. I don't see the need for civil (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Yes. However the LUGNET server doesn't currently have the capabilty to send (originate) mail, does it? That was how I read what you said before. In that case, if it's true that it can't, what then? (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) I think Kevin does have a working email? Unless you want to define working as "has to be able to accept email from whatever domains/servers the admins happen to use". I would define it as "able to accept email from the LUGNET server and not (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) ...and that is why he will not stand down even when it is the right thing to do... he is here for our good! lol. His nefarious activities are good for us! IMO, it is time the other admins had a quiet word with him. (...) Don't be a fool. It is (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Policy Changes
|
|
(...) I ain't touchin' that one. (...) Okay, jut as soon as you can get to those, he'd appreciate it. He'll probably read this shortly. Thanks again, -Stefan- (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Policy Changes
|
|
(...) I've been so busy reading all the posts saying what a terrible person I am and how everything I do is bad for LUGNET that I haven't had a chance to do approvals for a few days, and it looks like I'm the only person that seems to do them. (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Posting Policy Changes
|
|
On behalf of a friend (Jeff - builder of the Salamis MOC), I've been asked to tell you that he has been waiting almost three days for posting changes to take affect and he'd like an ETA on that please. Thank you, -Stefan- (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. LUGNET does not have this ability, as I understand it. It is possible to construct an email that shows the "from:" as being from a lugnet.com email address, but, again, as I understand it, not to have the email actually be (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I assume you mean they, the (other) admins? (...) Well maybe, but I'm not sure "should be expected to come to consensus" is very useful here. What if a majority do agree that an admin is a problem, but they can't all come to a consensus? At (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) The admin team has worked on a consensus basis, and the theory (OK, my theory) was that if a fellow admin was problematic enough to need to be removed, they would be the ones that would need to agree about it. A majority vote system might be (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I would be interested to hear the rationale behind that statement, specifically why it is more of a safety valve than majority decision. The reason I ask is that I, as a non-admin, see it as *removing* a safety valve. ROSCO (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
Just to make things clear...the views I expressed are my own, and not indicative of the rest on NELUG. Tom D (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I think that's accurate, yes. (...) Playing devil's advocate, I would ask why you would expect that as a right? It's not a right I think you would expect from most other people. For example, I don't expect fair and just treatment from the (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Could you clarify that a bit? Why should it not be technically possible to have official emails coming from the lugnet.com domain? That's a very basic ability of any serious website. If you mean that it is sometimes inconvenient to send emails (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) This is explained clearly in the ToU, and in a previous post. (...) The main admin page lists all the LTT as @lugnet.com. I've done nothing to prevent those email addresses. If official Admin accounts are not able to send email on a particular (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Whatever. But the issue remains, whose responsibility is it to ensure email communication works? LUGNET and the LUGNET admins? Or the user? This issue has come up before and while the admins will do what they can, it's not their responsibility (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I'm sure you do. (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) That's not accurate. What IS accurate is that when I discovered there was a problem, I talked to my support and based on what they told me then, I said to you that the problem was at your end. Later on, you insinuated that I was deliberately (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I don't think that looking at only priveledges is a more accurate way to look at these issues. I think you only address part of the issue. The P&P and ToU already define everything as priveledges, but this means they can be taken away. Rights (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Yes, I know this, *and* I knew it that time that Larry tried to make it look like my fault by saying the problem was on my end. Have to admit, he's good at spin. (...) I don't won't accept any unofficial email warnings. Otherwise the emails (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) That's mostly accurate, I would add "or one or more site owner(s) remove a staff member from their position." The reason it's stated in such a way stems from the current structure of LUGNET ownership... Todd and Suzanne are the owners of (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I missed the significance of this on the first reading, but it got me thinking: Eventually, I assume the LUGNET Transition Team is going to hand over control to some other governing body once it gets sorted what the future for LUGNET is going (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I think it is outrageous to completely ignore someone's input because you don't like them. Larry has told me that I am a "button pusher" and that my "opinion carries less and less weight with [him] over time" Disagree with the admins once, and (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) Just to let you know, this feeling is not limited to NELUG. In fact it is an international concern. If Larry were not an admin I wouldn't care, but he *is* and admin and therefore it affects LUGNET significantly. Unfortunatly there is no (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
I have been around LUGNET since the beginning. I don't really post much, hell, I don't think I've posted in over a year. But I do have an opinion on this subject..and here it is (probably ban worthy...but who cares, all the infighting here makes it (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Ok - but that doesn't change my point. It's out of YOUR control if Yahoo accepts messages from Larry's server. You'd have no way of knowing if it does or doesn't until you actually are sent one. On the other hand, you KNOW that mail from (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) For the sake of accuracy, the server at Larry's end was working fine. Due to address similarities to popular SPAMmer addresses, Yahoo dropped the email. This is accruate, right Larry? Kevin (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) While using a "From: ...@lugnet.com" address can help with spam filter issues, I don't think it would have helped in this case, since the problem sounds like it was an actual inability of Larry's mail server to deliver mail to Kevin's. Setting (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
No offense taken, Lenny. My day job for the last seven years has been "administering" an e-commerce web site that encompasses several hundred different organizations and handles anywhere from 5 to 7 billion US dollars in transactions each year. I (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Yes if it's already set up, I would suggest that it be required. Then you could even have something in the posting info somewhere (or the ToU? Both?) saying "All official Lugnet emails will come from a @lugnet.com address, so we advise you to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) That's definitely the preferred method; in fact, I had some problems sending and receiving using my LUGNET admin email address, but those have been straightened out. While it's preferred, I don't believe that it's absolutely required, but (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Well to be pedantic, there were 2 statements in your sentence, Kevin's response could have been referring to either (or both). (...) Which brings up another point - do official mails come from the @lugnet.com addresses, or from your private (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Certainly I think they should look at it. In fact I would be surprised if they haven't already. (...) I certainly believe anything that isn't posted here or pertaining to Lugnet business should not be actionable here. But I haven't yet formed (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
I've been accused of taking this quote out of context. LUGNET is not a democracy. Here are all the contexts I found this quote used. Short of providing the entire text, I'll provide reasonable context. If more context is desired, I'll be happy to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) The question was not directed at me, but I can give *my* perception of the situation. "No-one bothered to comment in public on the offense" This means that other people, reading just the groups, not having insight into private e-mails, other (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | The light touch (was Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) OK, to clarify, in your opinion, are you saying this particular clause of the ToU should not be enforced at all? Or just not in this particular case with respect to this particular post? If not at all, why not? It's really a hot button with (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) so why not here??? (...) can this be discussed now and here? please. (...) YOU guys are/were heavy handed. IMO. The other approach is the one that tony so eloquently described. LESS is more. That's a serious question. It's easy to say that the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) Yes Larry it is EASY! I KNOW what ~I~ would do. walk away! ignore it. IF this is what you did, then good for you. if not...... (shrug) more of the same-ol' same-ol' i guess. The ToU and its enfocement should be more about the "spirit" then the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> Time to induce a little levity... (URL) to bring it a little back to the community--remember the badger at BF'04? :) Dave K (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) I'm not going to reply in detail (although there is stuff I agree with and stuff I disagree with...) Instead, I'm going to ask you how *you* would handle a particular post, as an exercise. (URL) a post that flogs. There is nothing in that post (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) I'm sure there are many ways to define this, but what I mean is being so strict about following the minutiae of rules and regulations that enforcement becomes/is perceived as becoming overbearing, personal rather than professional, punitive, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) This statement implies that you tbink things happening outside of LUGNET should have a bearing on this question. Is there a justification for this? (...) Finally. (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) I don't consider this a personal attack. Larry is trying to speak the truth as he sees it. I think he is right too. To my knowledge I didn't have my facts straight on these issues. If I think of more I'll post them: 1. The number of emails I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) Different than an online community, I'm sure you would agree, but clearly a source of a lot of useful insight, thanks for sharing it. (...) And elsewhere, that's been my management experience (in real life) as well. (snipped the rest, all (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) I have managed several quick-serve restauarant businesses, in one of which I had responsibility over more than 50 employees. I also managed 2 college dormitory floors, one with over 100 residents, both with residents from around the world. A (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) I miscounted there were three. Kevin (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Why not? It was my point, that without someone saying "We've listened, we've considered it carefully, we worked our process and we worked our review process, and we don't at this time see a need to change this particular reviewing action, and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Possibly. (...) Because it's representative. A committee of review, appointed by an appointed committee, may, in spite of good intentions, not be representative. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Another resignation: I'm stepping down.
|
|
(...) I don't know. But, if things are going to be justified by this 'growth', then I think it'd be a good idea if someone spelt out what that growth was. Presumably those that are claiming this 'growth' requires/justifies for Administraion have (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) That's a good question. Should the admin team consider Kevin's multiple attacks on Lenny and myself to be "personal attacks" as well? Or does the higher standard principle apply here, that we have to endure everything on and off line? I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legends of Todd
|
|
(...) Using an example from our history, Rosa Parks sat where she dam-well pleased; had she abided, things would be much different now. Free expression of ideas has for some time now been stifled on LUGNET - Opposing viewpoints, regardless of (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: One comment
|
|
(...) What we consider profane differs, I guess. But it's not that big a deal. I just wanted to make sure that no one could say you posted a link to something objectionable without warning about it, that's all. (recall that you asked about that very (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
|
(...) Does the Admin Team consider this a personal attack? Certainly worth looking at IMO. (Note I am making no judgement as to the truth or otherwise of the assertion.) ROSCO (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: One comment
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: >> Say the word, and I'll post a link. > Go ahead, please do post the whole thing. I have the same log you do, so if you > edited it, it would be pretty obvious there was a discrepancy, wouldn't it? > Also please remember that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: One comment
|
|
(...) Go ahead, please do post the whole thing. I have the same log you do, so if you edited it, it would be pretty obvious there was a discrepancy, wouldn't it? Also please remember that you would need to warn that it may contain material that some (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Grups
|
|
(...) Grups is from the original Star Trek series -- the show where the kids die after reaching puberty. Andy Evans (Who's staying out of the debate, but is always ready to rise to the challenge of Star Trek trivia!) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think that is irrelevant here so I will not agree or disagree. (...) That's all fine, given that the ToU says "reason X will result in a timeout of 48 hours". However, I doubt the ToU will ever cover every possible reason for timeout, and a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: Thanks, Kelly, for your comments about this. I have only one point I'd like to make: (...) Whereas I think it is inevitable *eventually*. That's not a slur against admins, it's just human nature. But (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) I think this is a fantastic discussion-- one that we started on the list, but (as I've said on the list) I *REALLY* want admin feedback like this from admins on a continual basis. Seriously, this is the most effectual I've felt yet about the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) You are correct. I was referring to the LTT as a group. Had you been chair I would have had much more faith in the process. <snip> (...) It most certainly was what I received. (...) I do not beleive that the way Chris was (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) That was my paraphrasing of the original information I saw about the purpose for the committee, I apologize for not being specific. (...) I'm assuming the "you" is directed at the LTT, and not me personally, so I'll respond as such. The (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | A Radical changeof Thought
|
|
Maybe we're approaching this from the wrong direction. Forgive me if it sounds like my church background sounds like it'scoming thru, but here we go-- First there was darkness. From the darkness arose The Internet! Many thronged to this internet and (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) This wasn't in reference directly to 'the incident'. This was in reference to the perception that the administration is cloistered, 'working furiously'on a 'boldnew future' for LUGNET and will come outwith it when they're good and ready. Thus, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) Well, as far as I could tell, the LPRV pretty much just had the privilage to see the document before it went into effect. And, I'm not opposed to that, really. I mean, I fully recognize and support the desire to strengthen a document before (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote: <snip> (...) Larry has provided me with convincing evidence that the email breakdown from his work to me on yahoo was not his doing. I will ask this though, given that you knew the email conduit was (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) Nowhere in the charter did it say "stay on task and avoid time-consuming loops like debating personalities or picking apart past actions". Why would you create a charter with the working (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Another resignation: I'm stepping down.
|
|
(...) Define "active". Does activity require a specific number of posts per day for a particular group? A specific number of views per day? A specific number of e-mail subscriptions? Who is to set the baseline for comparison? This growth, or (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) ? Sorry, could you clarify that? Every reviewing action lately has been seen, there haven't been any non public timeouts given in quite a while. (...) ? Can you clarify that? I see no signs of that! (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) This is a huge point. Proofreaders. My perception of the group was that we were not able to agree or disagree with anything in the document, rather we were to simply point out syntax and grammar mistakes. Given that I openly don't (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) So, the democratic association rules on certain tabled options and in turn passes those options agreed upon to the aristocracy? How is that better exactly? -Duane (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) For informal functions, that's probably a good idea. The LPRV, on the other hand, did/does have real power and responsibility: the power to change and steer and directly influence an important part of LUGNET's direction, and the responsibility (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) Yeah, I know, you'd think as a web developer I'd take better care of the various presentation methods. There's a dash between the key learning and comment, that should help a little. Kelly McKiernan LUGNET Administrator (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
"Kelly J. McKiernan" <kelly.mckiernan@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:IFCuJu.A4A@lugnet.com... (...) Italics would work so much better if I weren't using the NNTP interface... (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) Some very good comments in this thread (Dave and Larry especially have brought up some salient points), I'd like to paraphrase what I understand as the key learnings, with my comments in italics. LUGNET staff (admins) need to be aware of how (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) Another personal preference: don't call it a committee. Treat it casually. "We asked some people if they wouldn't mind giving us some feedback". Calling it a committee implies that it's a group with power and responsibility. It could possibly (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think the problem is the way it's presented. Please, don't ever tell people not to talk about it. Telling people "this decision is final, don't discuss it anymore" is very stand-offish. You're right, the decision may indeed be final, but at (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) LUGNET is not a democracy. A members association could be. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
Lenny, I'm still waiting for a response to this post. It has many questions directed specifically to you, including a request for specifics about the generalized comment that I am a liar. You claim you suspended Chris based on his LUGNET behavior, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) And as part of the admin staff, what are you going to do about this 'crux'? Wishing it away will not make it go away. Whereas I may agree that 'the community' may need to 'cut some slack' (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> We haven't really seen 'em, so how can we tell if they're incorrect? It's a matter of trust. Well, a prime minister of some country got on the telly last night and talked about (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Nicely said, Larry. However, wouldn't you agree that, in specific instances (especially as we've seen recently) that there needs to be debate, especially since if there's a perceived (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) PS, that's just the sort of "picking at every word" (questioning "endless" when you know what was meant) that deters participation. (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Possibly due to the perceived lack of faith from 'the community' towards the admin team in a few areas, such as, and this is one example--dealing with apparent transgressions in an (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Sorry, that was rhetoric. LUGNET is not infinite so there never has been an "endless" one. But there have been lots of interminable ones, don't you agree? (...) For a "made up" example The decision would be "person A gets a timeout of 48 hours (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think we are getting to the crux here, but I will go back over the rest of the post later, and see if there's anything I think warrants further examination. (...) Please point me to an endless debate. (...) Of course. (...) OK, I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I was referring to the whole thing. What specifically do you disagree with? This is an important point that bears repeating: " endless debate (about specific reviewing actions) has proven (in many many other places, not just here) not to be (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I'm not sure exactly which part you're referring to so I'll just look at the last paragraph. I agree debate is not going to change the initial decision, but it CAN point out fallacies in the decision process that could lead ANOTHER decision (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
