Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:40:44 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2050 times
|
| |
|
|
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, but the post that
explained your reasonings provides no evidence of that. It only provides
evidence that Chris' behavior off LUGNET is what motivated you. Combine this
with the fact that the proposed P&P would allow you to do it again with equally
feeble justification *strongly* motivated me to go public.
Larry mentioned trust as an issue. The above issue and its support by the
remainder of the Admin team, continues to raise *huge* trust issues for me with
the LTT. It questions the very integrity with which the rules are applied. You
would prefer that I silently step down and let the LTT set rules in place that
let you repeat the above questionable "enforcement". Doing so would only
benefit the LTT's power position and provide further control over the LUGNET
membership.
Sorry. I'm not going to do that. Spin away about evil Kevin, but I think the
above reasoned argument speaks for itself.
Kevin
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) Lenny, Please elucidate where you know factually that I was wrong. (...) This issue *is not* about me. (...) Lenny, you presume much about my motivations. I'd prefer that you speak only for yourself. The timing of the writing of the document (...) (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
|
|
|
|
