Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:20 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1671 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
The story you are about to hear is true, but the names were changed to
protect the innocent.....
|
First, thank you for your efforts with the LPRV committee, Kevin. Even though
you and others felt you could not continue the process, I still believe it’s a
vital component in getting LUGNET back on track, and I’m hopeful that the review
process can continue.
Some background:
The LUGNET Procedures Review committee was formed recently, with the goal of
reviewing newly-drafted LUGNET Processes & Procedures and providing constructive
feedback on those documents. I drafted the documents over the course of a long
weekend, and they were tweaked within the LUGNET Transition Team. These docs
were the direct result of recent events where some LUGNET members and staff
behaved less than admirably, and the docs were designed to do the following:
- Update LUGNET’s overall goals
- Update the staff directory
- Define LUGNET staff duties and responsibilities
- Outline the steps necessary when action is required (e.g. for curators, database admins, policy administrators, and so on)
- Help define and streamline the processes that have frequently been stalled (e.g. processing membership requests, and so on)
- Provide for the overall LUGNET membership a stated set of procedures that would be followed by the staff
- Enunciate a set of expectations and code of conduct for LUGNET staff
- Update the Terms of Use agreement (which has not yet been done)
- Explain new techniques that we hope will alleviate the “censorship” perception
(It was our hope that by defining the roles, duties, and responsibilities, the
overall LUGNET membership would be able to improve attitudes toward the
administration in general. Even with the problems that have arisen during this
process, I am still hopeful this is true.)
Once the documents were adjusted to the point where the LUGNET Transition Team
felt comfortable having an outside review, Larry Pieniazek suggested forming a
committee of respected LUGNET members, which we agreed to unanimously. Larry
chaired this LPRV committee, and acted as liaison between the LTT and the
committee. The LTT was copied on this discussion list, while the LTT discussion
was not available to the LPRV committee.
It soon became apparent that there was unanticipated discomfort within the LPRV
group for several reasons. One issue was that some members of the committee felt
there was an apparent conflict of interest in Larry being involved with the
committee, even though others on the committee had also been involved in
previous incidents. There was also concern expressed about the committee’s
findings being disregarded summarily, and any findings or recommendations
ignored; that the committee was formed solely as a “rubber stamp” function.
There was also a call for the entire discussion process to be continued in a
public venue. Other concerns also came up.
After some initial work had been done by the committee, there appeared to be
significant side chats happening off the discussion list, through email and IM.
I can’t speak to the contents of that since I wasn’t involved or even aware of
it until later. At this point a couple of the committee members decided they
couldn’t continue with the process, and tendered their resignation. I don’t know
the reasons, personally, but I respect their decisions, although I hope they
reconsider.
A bit more progress was made, but then the discussion apparently fell silent
until Kevin publicly presented his resignation from the committee. This
resignation makes some assumptions that are unfortunately inaccurate, and I need
to correct some of the core misconceptions.
- The LPRV committee’s work is/was vital. The assumption that it was a rubber stamp committee was not based on input from the LTT, or any communication from LTT to LPRV. The assumption was not correct. In fact, the implosion of this committee is a serious roadblock because we have been relying on the committee’s feedback to ensure the assumptions made were valid.
- The documentation in question was written in good faith, with an attempt to balance the comfort of LUGNET members with the necessity to enforce the site’s rules (via the ToU). The P&P docs are an attempt to learn from past mistakes, and avoid repetition.
- The documentation was not (and is not) complete, and the concerns expressed by Kevin publicly are the type of feedback we wanted to receive and address before its release. The entire purpose of the committee was to highlight potential problems so that they could be fixed.
- Larry’s position as chair of the committee was purely administrative and, as was repeatedly told to the committee, was not a position to influence the outcome of the committee’s work. His involvement was no more a conflict of interest than was the inclusion of Kevin Clague and Chris Magno on the committee.
- LUGNET administrators are consistently accused of oppression or aggressive policies and agendas. This is not accurate, although I understand that my simply saying so won’t quell the concerns some people have. The people who have volunteered to try to help define and apply LUGNET policies have several reasons for doing it, but powermongering is not among them.
- One theme that is represented in Kevin’s post is that LUGNET staff members hold all power, and members hold none. In fact, the administration has very little real effect on day-to-day actions within LUGNET. We can’t close topics, we can’t edit posts, we can’t remove posts. The only recourse currently available (by self-imposed decision) is to temporarily disallow posting from an individual who has flagrantly flouted the ToU. Other solutions to this issue are in development.
- It’s apparent that many people have issues with Larry and the way he does things. It’s also fair to say that those issues seem to be applied to all LUGNET administrators by association, since Larry is by far the most visible administator. Kevin’s post demonstrates an assumption regarding the nature of LUGNET administrators being solely concerned with a power base, which is simply not true. If it were true, Lenny would not have resigned; why would he, if he had all the power?
I would like to ask for the help of LUGNET members in solving the problems that
the community is facing. The first step is to be as accurate as possible. I
understand Kevin’s post reflects his feelings in how and why the committee was
formed and has been handled; but it’s important for everyone to understand
events from a separate perspective.
This community will become what we all make of it.
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip lotsa goodstuff> (...) The first step, in my humble opinion, isn't accuracy, it's transparency. We're not in Kindergarten, where the teacher has to set everything up 'behind the scenes' and then (...) (19 years ago, 21-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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| The story you are about to hear is true, but the names were changed to protect the innocent..... Freddy-engineer used to really enjoy Tengul, a park where he and friends talked about their favorite toy, LEGO. Freddy enjoyed this park very much and (...) (19 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
