Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:34:49 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2120 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> The LUGNET Procedures Review committee was formed recently
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 evoke emotions of "why aren't *I* on the committee?". I think it
further enforces the idea of Lugnet as a business rather than a community.
And what the heck. While I keep seeming to throw out advice, here's more: Why
did it take 3 days to get this reply to Kevin? I think the problem may be that
the LTT is afraid of itself. It doesn't require an immediate official response,
but a quick non-official word from admins would have been excellent.
I'm kind of worried that the view the admins have at the moment is "*I* don't
want to post about it, what if I say something without the official stamp of
approval from the rest of the LTT?" Now, I'd agree this IS an issue when tempers
flare, and I'd advocate NOT posting to anyone moved to reply based on a want to
bust out in rebuttal. However, if you're NOT emotionally involved, throw out a
quick note to the general membership. As nonchalant as possible, being
informative, concerned, aware, and responsive. If what you say doesn't agree
exactly with the feelings of the LTT as a whole, so be it. I don't think you
should have to worry about that. The only time you need to worry in that
department *should* be when you might be giving negatively emotional responses.
> * 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.
Well, that's not quite true. I think the truth is that the LTT said some things
that stated that the purpose of the LPRV was basically to be proofreaders. Fix
spelling, grammar, and maybe clarity and structure of the document. Don't
discuss the policies, don't discuss past events, don't discuss specific admins.
But later, after we started discussing those very things, the LTT tried to make
it clear that it really would listen to those inputs. I don't think that
openness was conveyed as best as possible, but you're right, I don't think the
LTT *actually* saw the LPRV as a group of yes-men (or, yes-women as the case may
be).
> * 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.
Heh, so, in effect, Kevin's correct? Staff holds all the power, there's just not
much of it? I think the problem is that the power to disable posting rights is
pretty considerable. And since (as you correctly state) it really IS your only
power, I've been concerned that it may also be used as a response to unrelated
issues. But I'll discuss that further on the list (actually, I guess I already
did)
And in the theme of offering advice: (from another post)
> it's apparent we need to be more explicit about confidentiality in the
> future, possibly up to and including NDAs.
That sort of comes off as defensive. Realistically, what would a Lugnet NDA do?
I mean, is it really worth Lugnet's while to persue legal action if someone
violates an NDA? Maybe if there were some sort of marketable idea or code
involved, yeah. But something like the P&P? To me, it sounds like an NDA is kind
of a silly idea as far as this is concerned. I think the idea of an NDA might
have come about more from being defensive rather than as a valid option. And
again, I'll point out business vs. community. Businesses issue NDA's.
Communities just learn to be more careful when handing out private info.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) For informal functions, that's probably a good idea. The LPRV, on the other hand, did/does have real power and responsibility: the power to change and steer and directly influence an important part of LUGNET's direction, and the responsibility (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) <snip> (...) This is a huge point. Proofreaders. My perception of the group was that we were not able to agree or disagree with anything in the document, rather we were to simply point out syntax and grammar mistakes. Given that I openly don't (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
