Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:00:26 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > Hi Lenny,
> >
> > You're a great guy. When I met you for the first time 2 years ago you seemed to
> > be an intelligent person with well thought out ideas. However, is this the best
> > response you can come up with?
>
> No. I was very upset by Kevin's post - specifically how he characterized me
> (aka Jacko-dmin), and the other admins. I went through five different drafts.
> I don't think this was the best responce possible, but I wanted to do something
> - rather than keep writing drafts until I got something perfect.
>
> > Kevin made some very relevant and poignant
> > observations of this process, which I might add is closed to the public eye, and
> > the best reply is a personal attack? Isn't this exactly what we are trying to
> > prevent?
>
> He made >some< relevant observations. He also made some ghastly incorrect
> observations, and some observations that specifically try to change the truth.
> It is this sort of thing that is difficult for Admins to deal with - a few good
> points mixed with a bunch of bad ones.
Lenny,
Please elucidate where you know factually that I was wrong.
>
> I don't think I was attacking Kevin personally. I think the most attacking
> thing I said was saying that he's trying to be a martyr. Honestly, when I read
> the post, that was the feeling I got.
This issue *is not* about me.
>
> My intent wasn't to attack Kevin anymore than he was attacking me or the other
> Admins. The LPRV Committee is not, nor was it ever, a rubber stamp committee.
> Neither I, nor Larry, oppressed anyone for personal reasons. Kevin stepped down
> from the LPRV for his own reasons, not because anyone tried to chase him away or
> any other such nonsense.
Lenny, you presume much about my motivations. I'd prefer that you speak only
for yourself.
The timing of the writing of the document was specifically because of the issue
with Larry and Chris. Many mistakes were made on all sides. The Admins
publicly acknowledged they made mistakes. I personally feel that Larry made the
most agregious mistakes, and the most numerous.
We have a document to review and low and behold Larry is the chair. Why was
Larry selected as chair when the document was motivated by his behavior? I saw
that as a huge conflict of interest. I felt intimidated by Larry and the
conflict of interest that he presented. I complained many times to the Admins
and all I ever got back was, it was not negotiable. This is gave me my first
feeling that the committe was a rubber stamp.
Combine this with the fact that draft document would let any of the Admins
repeat the mistakes of suspending Chris for activity on other sites and I felt
that there really was no intent to make things better. I felt that Larry's "my
way or the highway" attitude was very oppressive. You may not percieve it as
such, but we're talking here about how it felt to me, not to you.
I experienced Larry's oppresive nature in the past in a way that cost me money.
He went so far as to tell me I should thank him for his abuse of power. I'll
happily provide more details if you want them. I know you consider this a
personal issue, and not something that speaks to Larry's character, but I
disagree. I'm tired of being bullied by Larry and I spoke up.
You repeatedly claim that you suspended Chris based on his activites on LUGNET,
but the facts state this:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12396
Which is it? LUGNET behavior, or off LUGNET behavior. Please tell me how that
post of Chris' violates the ToU in any way.
Your action there was very suspect and upset many of us as indicated by followup
posts to your post.
The draft document we were to review specifically gave Admins (yourself
included) permission to to do it again.
I quote from the P&P draft:
> E. Staff Code of Conduct:
>
> 8. Except in extreme circumstances, communication or issues outside the
> scope of LUGNET.com should not be invoked or considered when posting an
> official LUGNET message, or in recommending or considering timeout requests.
This specifically gives Admins the ability to repeat the Larry/Lenny/Chris
debacle under what in their judgement is "extreme". The judgement was flawed
last time, and could be again.
This told me that the Admin team really didn't "get it", and left me feeling
that the review committee was going to be ineffectual. There was no guarantee
that the Admin teams would take any of our feeback and to anything with it. The
LUGNET membership would also not get to review the document before it was put in
place. Most of the LPRV committee members expressed concerns about being a
rubber stamp committee.
Given this quote from Larry:
> You need to internalise that I'm the chair and figure out how to work
> within that boundary. Dwelling on the past and alleged misdeeds by the
> admins (especially when you don't even have all your facts straight)
> when everyone else wants to work on the document itself, and on
> specific things that need changing is not going to get you anywhere
> with the owners of LUGNET and with the admins.
>
> This is not a rubberstamp body.
> LUGNET is not a democracy.
It was clear that Larry didn't care about the obvious conflict of interest. The
left me with no confidence that the process was really set up for a good
outcome.
The last statement implies that as an Admin, he has all the power and the rest
of us have none. These felt *extremely* opressive, and were reason enough to
resign from the committee.
Here are some other quotes directly from the P&P that I found very
disconcerting, and reenforcing that membership will never have any say:
> 16. Staff members should not feel that they are obligated to answer
> questions or provide detailed rationale for decisions made in an official
> capacity.
> 17.On the other hand, valid concerns expressed by members should be passed
> to the entire admin team for discussion, as appropriate.
In other words, the Admins never have to justify their actions.
> 26. Official LUGNET messages are announcements and not invitations for
> debate. Feedback is always welcome, of course, but it will not necessarily
> have any effect on an official message.
> 27. Administrators should not engage in debates stemming from an official
> message post, or debate LUGNET policy in general. Unsolicited suggestions,
> criticism, demands of explanation, and so on should all be answered briefly > and courteously.
Again, this states that membership desires no matter how populous can just be
ignored by Admins.
> 28. Administrators are appointed by the site owners and are not subject to
> a vote of recall by LUGNET members.
We have no say on who can be Admins and who cannot.
Had I quietly resigned with nothing said, as you desire, then the Admin team
would just continue to do what they want without regard to membership concerns,
and the present situation which I have *grave* concerns about would continue
without any checks and balances.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) No. I was very upset by Kevin's post - specifically how he characterized me (aka Jacko-dmin), and the other admins. I went through five different drafts. I don't think this was the best responce possible, but I wanted to do something - rather (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
