Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:47:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3042 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
snip
|
Some very good comments in this thread (Dave and Larry especially have brought
up some salient points), I’d like to paraphrase what I understand as the key
learnings, with my comments in italics.
- LUGNET staff (admins) need to be aware of how things are phrased (this is kind of a no-brainer, but it’s top-level so I’m including it). In other words, “It’s not what is said, but what is heard.” - I wholeheartedly agree with this, and while I think we have always tried to take this into consideration, it hasn’t always happened as much as the administrators or members would like.
- Perception of inequity is as damaging as the fact of inequity. - I do think there’s more perception than fact, but both must be addressed by actions, not just words.
- “Transparency” means a lot of things, but from what I understand here it means a regular information flow about what is in the planning stages, what current problems exist, and so on, especially before anything is “final”. It also means there is an opportunity for general discussion before the finish line, with the overall understanding that while such discussion may or may not change the outcome, it will be taken into consideration before a final decision on anything is made. It does not mean that all interactions are conducted in a public venue. - I agree with this definition. More opportunity for input, better understanding of the processes that are being implemented or modified. Although using the LPRV as an example, I don’t know how much more transparent that process should have been; but in general, this type of communication is a great idea.
- The decision-making process should include input from members when at all possible. - I completely agree this is the best route; after all, LUGNET is for and about its membership. Two things to remember about this: one, the final decision rests with whoever is in charge of LUGNET (which right now is the admin team); and the extent that member input is incorporated into any given process or decision is ultimately determined by whoever is in charge. The buck has to stop somewhere.
- The appeal process must be defined and perceived as fair by the majority of members and staff. - Oh yeah. That’s part of what the P&P docs are trying to do... and from Kevin’s comments and subsequent discussion, it looks to be one of the areas that needs the most work.
- Respect and trust are earned, not given. - Going all directions; member to member, admin to admin, admin to member, member to admin.
- Admins should always make sure people understand their opinions are heard and welcome. - Welcoming feedback has actually always been true, but I can see where some comments I may have made, or other admins made, might have conveyed a different sense. That’s an immediate issue we can and should work on.
- Todd’s style in the “olden days” was more open and inviting, and I understand more people would like to have the same type of feeling of being included. - That’s fair. With constraints of how the current admin team is constructed, it’s been much more difficult to do that, but we need to find ways of improving.
I’ve probably missed something, but those are what I understand are the key
issues from the latest discussion set.
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
