 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I too see this as unnecessary - there is still no requirement for the administration to act on any recommendations of the LMA, in effect they can say, as they have already done several times now, "We have made the decision and will not respond (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Let's clarify what's meant when that sort of thing is said. (and what was omitted when it was said) This is, at some level, a governance question (governance in the general sense of "how things are organised") It's important to distinguish (...) (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 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. (19 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 (...) (19 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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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' (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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! (19 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, (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Is saying someone wigged out a personal attack? Is it beaving to a different standard? DOesn't sound like you are unpholdin' to you own rules. You commiteed to do better. Kevin (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Sounds like the double standard again. I was called to town for asking users to respect Admins, and everyone said there is no way to police whether people respect us or not. And now you're trying to call Larry out because he doesn't respect (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
Could you guys please start a new thread with all this feces? It seems this thread has fallen victim to name-calling and the other normal antics... Back on topic. Evey decently large community has a members' association. I bet a few of you who live (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) Larry, No. I'd start to worry when (arguably justified) personal attacks on a LUGNET admin are (URL) spotlighted> on LUGNET's homepage. For that to happen once is very unfortunate. For it to happen repeatedly… I'd be further concerned when (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) Yeah, a lot of people. But MOST people think that Larry is suitable to be an admin. And most importantly, Todd thinks Larry is an excellent choice to be an admin - as it is Todd's choice to empower an Admin or not. -Lenny (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Trust: was Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) You told us you wanted us to wordsmith it and fix syntax and gramatical errors. When I first started proposing ideas that were not in the document, a member of LTT started arguing with me. In an attempt to look at each case, I applied *my* (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) My miscounting was wrong, and I was wrong to say Larry did any abusive emailing. I respectfully request that (URL) post be cancelled, so that Larry no longer has to defend himself against false charges. (...) Not in my opinion. Kevin (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Well, Lenny, Larry and I have had some conversations, especially when the LPRV was first formed, and he acknowledged that he felt that Admins should be held to a higher standard hat on, or hat off. So Larry beleives there should be a double (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: my “button pushing” opinion! ;)
|
|
(...) ...and I thought he only got 45% of the vote. ;) (...) I’m beginning to feel that he is being bloody-minded on this issue. Scott A (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Thanks. For everything you said. "I can think of a hundred things I'd rather do than debate this stuff." Ya, me too! I'll see your 100 and raise you a hundred. Emotions have run high here, but your recent actions convince me I was wrong to (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Larry, always the competitive one :P Levity is a good thing. and by the way, you're welcome. (...) I'm very pleased to hear this Larry, with this we can work to go forward. I look forward to it. If the LTT and LPRV (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
<SNIPPAGE> (...) ... (...) </SNIPPAGE> If you guys aren't going to stop hijacking my thread, I might as well join in on the claim-jumping too... I'd officially like to make this a red letter date. A day to remember. A day for the history book (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I'm happy to report that you should be back on the committee as soon as the email is reconfigured (from the LTT perspective). (which should be about 2 min after Matt reads his mail) I didn't even think to ask the rest of the LPRV how they felt (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) You are SO out of it, I admit I'm wrong all the time. It's just that... (wait for it) I never make misteaks! ++Lar (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Lar++ is WRONG! (was: Re: LUGNET members association)
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...e.DOT.com> wrote in message news:IFIpFp.1zt2@lugnet.com... (...) I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken... Please FUT to o-t.fun - I can't from NNTP Rob (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar++ is WRONG! (was: Re: LUGNET members association)
|
|
(...) Well, if you can't, it isn't a limitation of NNTP - but possibly of your newsreader. NNTP protocol has had the ability to set followups from pretty early on. On the other hand, I don't know if there's any facility to set followups for those (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Lenny, I never said all the people would believe such assurances all the time. But I still think it's worth providing them. ROSCO (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lar++ is WRONG! (was: Re: LUGNET members association)
|
|
(...) Setting the reply-to header does that. (19 years ago, 26-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Setting follow-up (was something else)
|
|
(...) In fact you can. With Outlook Express You just select "View" --> "Show all headers" when you're composing the message. And there it is: "Followup to", just enter the appropriate group. (All menu items translated from Swedish, so the actual (...) (19 years ago, 26-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
