Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:53:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1857 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip lotsa goodstuff>
|
You bring up some good and valid points, especially regarding perception of
opacity. It’s a real issue, and it’s something we’re trying to improve on. In
this specific example (the LPRV committee and process documentation), I do think
there’s been an appropriate amount of disclosure about what’s been happening.
For example, when Janey asked
about the status of changes promised after a recent episode, Larry replied with
information about forming a committee to review documents that were created
after the incident. A couple of days later,
he announced the committee publicly
and described what we were trying to do.
At this point the question becomes “why a small select group instead of
everybody on LUGNET”? It was (and still is) the viewpoint of the LUGNET
administration that a small, dedicated group of people would be able to identify
issues and recommend changes in an effective manner, without providing a
document to all of LUGNET that may have inadvertant errors or invalid
assumptions. For example, Kevin’s
original post in this thread called out some valid concerns that we need to
address before the documents are ready for everyone else to see, such as the
limits of offsite activity and appeal processes for those who feel they were
treated unfairly. There are other points that need to be taken care of as well.
If the review process had worked as intended (all points discussed and issues
presented to the admin team, preferably with recommendations on alleviating the
issues), we would have been able to plug the holes that are at issue, or at
least explain more fully the rationale behind any particular portion of the
docs. Since a portion of the issues have become public, we’ve now got forty-some
posts that wouldn’t have been necessary otherwise.
I understand and agree with the concept that all LUGNET members absolutely must
have a voice in what happens to the community. Where we may have a difference of
opinion is to what degree. Many people have called for complete openness - all
admin contact done in public forums, all review of proposed changes drafted and
discussed in public. With all due respect to those opinions, admirable as they
may be, that simply is not feasible... there are many reasons why tiered review
processes are much more efficient. I would ask that people please not confuse
processes like the LPRV committee with a sinister “cloak of secrecy”.
Confidentiality is not a bad thing in some instances, just as openness is a good
thing whenever possible and appropriate.
| |
The first step, in my humble opinion, isn’t accuracy, it’s transparency.
|
But if you have inaccurate or incomplete information (e.g. an imbalanced post
such as Kevin’s), then any amount of transparency is moot. Transparency doesn’t
equal accuracy.
| |
...but when a community feels wronged, justifiably or not, then the community
feels wronged.
|
Exactly. The administration must work on changing that perception.
| |
As the administration of this little community, it’s not up to you to dictate
how the community should or should not feel by pointing out the accuracy of
what actually transpired, it’s up to you to be as transparent as possible
--thus giving the community all data to base their decision making processes.
|
You seem to be contradicting yourself... first criticizing for us for providing
information about what happened, then criticizing for not providing all the
data. If you’re saying that we should have released raw, unreviewed documents
for all LUGNET to comment on, I would strongly disagree. If you are saying you’d
like to know more of what’s happening WITH those documents, and would prefer to
have more frequent updates and expectations set, that’s definitely something
that we can take into consideration.
I don’t expect to change any minds, since words are just words and not actions.
All I can really do is ask that ill intent not be attributed to an action
without specific knowledge of ill intent. For example, it would be easy to take
Kevin’s post personally and think he was simply out to cause trouble, but I
don’t think that. I prefer to think he is trying to help as best he knows how,
and I respect that, if true, even while I strongly disagree with his methods. So
the best I can do is correct misperceptions and inaccuracies, and provide
information (or “transparency” if you will) to recent events. It’s not complete,
because there’s no way to provide a complete, unbiased view into the
interpersonal dealings of many people. Any view must necessarily be displayed
through a filter. The ultimate goal, I think we would all agree, is to make that
filter as wide and clear as possible.
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) LUGNET historians might remember the flurry of posts about CP and cp--community policing. It was all in the open and we all chimed in and we all hashed it out (at least those of us who felt strongly about it) (...) Again, perception, even if (...) (19 years ago, 21-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| You mentioned the efficiency of a tiered review process as a reason for not making everything about lugnet administration public. I don't buy that. I submit that efficency is irrelavent to the problem at hand and I beleive that recent events clearly (...) (19 years ago, 21-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
