 | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Yep, point (b) was an extension of point (a).. see below. (...) Yep, I didn't mean to sound in any way disrespectful, as in assuming authority from Todd. What I meant is that I don't think that Todd is going to say "This is what is going to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I, as well, feel this is important. If you are saying something, then it should be visible. If not concurrent with the event, then soon there after. I believe the Federal Reserve does this for some decisions (Fed Funds rate, etc). They (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Thanks
|
|
(URL) A (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) There's a problem with this. The theoretical panel has to inherit "power" from Todd. Right now, Todd is the only admin. Not only that, but he's the owner. I'm sure we've all seen posts that read, "Well, I might not agree, but it's Todd's (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) On the other hand... I personally think the panel should present a united front. This is why I think that the idea of appeals is not such a good one. Once something is being talked about by "the panel", it's pretty clear the T&C have been (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Agreed. But I think that one has been resolved, more or less, in that it appears that Todd has indicated that he would like for some sort of commitee to form. (...) Right. (...) Here, we disagree again. I think the T&C are perfectly valid as (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Actually, thinking on - in the majority of occurances - would deliberation be necessary? If a panel member replies to a mis-placed one-off auction announcement, with a note saying "Please don't do this, etc, etc", and cc's or cross-posts this to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I agree with the concept of concensus, but there isn't always a "right" way to go about something - there will be times when someone will never feel comfortable with a certain compromise. Rather than have a panel continually reiterate their (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) panel (...) privacy? I (...) abilities, (...) when (...) be (...) powers? (...) means (...) takes (...) concensus (...) Well the idea of consensus is that you try and reach an agreement that everyone can (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I don't have a strong opinion either way, as it will only directly effect panel members anyway - but is the move towards a mailing list a desire for privacy? I always thought that newsgroups gave better structure and reference abilities, so if (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
