Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:08:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2371 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jason S. Mantor wrote:
> 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.
No personal offense intended - have you ever run a large community forum, or
managed people? There is a big difference in how people think things should be
run when they have actually had to run things.
> I submit that efficency is irrelavent to the problem at hand and I
> beleive that recent events clearly demonstrate that the efficiency of
> the current way of doing things (Tiered review?) is pitiful at best : (
I think that the LPRV Committee could have been wonderfully productive. My
personal hopes for it was that it would be the beginning of incorporating
non-Admin opinions into the decisions that are made. That is, the opening up
the Administration.
The failure of the LPRV, IMHO, wasn't the process it was using.
> David E. brought up that fact that lugnet worked very well under
> Todd's light touch in the past. There were no tiers, no committees, no
> heavy-handedness, and no secrets. I wish we could return to that, but
> the next best thing is probably "peer review." or transparency.
The past is always so much better than the way things are now. A lot of people
have been calling for Lugnet to modernize and update how things are run. I
think that Lugnet cannot be run by a single person with a totally hands-off way
of doing things. If for no other reason, it creates a single point of failure.
And Todd had lots of secrets. We don't know about them because they were inside
his head. When you have a group of people the idea of what is 'secret' changes.
It becomes a group agreement to not discuss things beyond the group - and
whether you like that idea or not, privacy and secrecy will always be important
to the administration of anything (from the USA gov't to Community Forums).
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) I too had high hopes for the LPRC. Has it officially failed? (...) Well I guess there's several viewpoints on those reasons too, but I would be interested in what (in your opinion) caused it to fail. ROSCO (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) I have managed several quick-serve restauarant businesses, in one of which I had responsibility over more than 50 employees. I also managed 2 college dormitory floors, one with over 100 residents, both with residents from around the world. A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| No offense taken, Lenny. My day job for the last seven years has been "administering" an e-commerce web site that encompasses several hundred different organizations and handles anywhere from 5 to 7 billion US dollars in transactions each year. I (...) (20 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
