 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) LUGNET is not a democracy. A members association could be. Cheers Richie Dulin (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
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, (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
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> (...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Possibly due to the perceived lack of faith from 'the community' towards the admin team in a few areas, such as, and this is one example--dealing with apparent transgressions in an (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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'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
|
|
(...) 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: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) I'll say this, I'm still hopeful that the LPRV will pick up where it left off and get back to work. Maybe now it can. I owe the LPRV a significant sized post with answers to the questions that were asked about various technical and intention (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
Leonard Hoffman wrote: If Kevin felt he couldn't in good faith (...) re: your last 5 words See, this is what people mean when they say transparency. (1) I have a HUGE post to go public, but i am sitting on it. WHY, cause out of respect i am hoping (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
To Lenny, Ross, and others: I may have hastily threw the idea out there, but picture it being more like an orgization similar to ILTCO. ILTCO is comprised of many LTCs and is one voice for them all when dealing with TLC... "Leonard Hoffman" (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
|
(...) I don't think there is much officiality to the failures it has experienced. I don't think the Admins have called for it to be disbanded yet. I don't know. (...) I think the committee's effectiveness was seriously damaged by Kevin publically (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legends of Todd
|
|
(...) To me, "abiding by the unfair ban while arguing with the committee" is a worthwhile thing to do. Since, this might happen even if the policy is submitted to the membership. TO use your example - what if you are gone on the day the ban is (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legends of Todd
|
|
(...) I'm sorry Marc, but the idea of Admins inhibiting discussion on Lugnet is laughable. When have we ever done that or attempted to do that? Admins cannot force edits or cancels - but can only do so when requested by a member. And if the (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
