Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:41:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2221 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
> > > * 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.
>
> Speaking as an observer of the committee, my understanding of the specifics of
> the group's charter was to stay on task and avoid time-consuming loops like
> debating personalities or picking apart past actions. If some of the statements
> from LTT came across as indicating a rubber stamp outcome, it was certainly not
> the intention. Of course, it's easy to say this after the fact, and won't change
> how members of the LPRV interpreted the messages at the time, but I was puzzled
> then (and still kind of am) that this was a serious concern. This is still a
> vital task that needs to be done, and I really hope the group can continue what
> it started, although I'm not in a position to make that happen.
Nowhere in the charter did it say "stay on task and avoid time-consuming loops
like debating personalities or picking apart past actions". Why would you
create a charter with the working assumption was that the committee wouldn't
behave the way you want.
The above statement, IMHO, smacks of censorship. You chose the committee
because you expected them to succeed. Before we failed, you started telling us
(me) what I should and shouldn't talk about. Did you not trust the other
members to get us back on track, if I had veered us so far off?
A famous philospher once said "If we do not study history, it is bound to repeat
itself". The document was drafted because history told you it needed to be
drafted. How can we check the document against history without talking about
it?
The document as written not only didn't prevent what some of us perceive as an
abuse of administrative powers in the suspending of Chris because of activity in
other domains, it authorized it in the future.
I guess I was supposed to just check for clerical errors and move on.
>
> > > * 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 wouldn't characterize it that way. Each member here has an impressive amount
> of influence depending on how they wish to utilize it. Admins have one extra
> tool in addition to the "post" button, they can temporarily suspend posting
> rights.
As is indicated by this process, my words can't make the LTT do anything.
"LUGNET is not a deomcracy" has been thrown in my face many times over the ast
month. Does that convey that I have any power, or perhaps is it a way to tell
me to sit down and shut up?
>
> > 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.
>
> That's assuming the admin staff can and would abuse the power. Since the
> procedures and requirements for using that power have been vague, and the
> results questioned, we are trying to define and standardize how and when it
> would be used by creating the P&P documents. Those documents should provide
> objective guidelines on under what circumstances a given action is taken, and
> under what limitations they may be used. This would be a public document that,
> if for some reason an admin were to suspend someone's posting for insufficient
> reasons, LUGNET members have a concrete way of crying "foul" and saying exactly
> why. It provides accountability, as well as making it easier for admins to
> determine what to do in a given circumstance.
It is my strong belief that the LTT *did* abuse power. Lenny's original post
about why he suspended Chris could have only had any meaningful issue with it if
his contest on JLUG was a primary consideration. Later Lenny recanted and said
that he really suspended Chris because of things that Chris only posted on
LUGNET. In that post there were no specifics sited, no relevent posts
indicated, nothing to back up his sudden switch of position. I beleive Lenny's
original post was correct, and that he suspended Chris for his contest on JLUG.
The P&P clearly states that with proper "justification" it could be done again.
Given that there was no credibility with the original incident, pardon me for
being a pessimist, am I magically supposed to trust it won't happen again?
I think the concept is flat out wrong, and I'll always be vocal about that. It
means that I can't express things about Jacka-dmin on my own website without
fear of retribution on LUGNET. Where does freedom of speach fit in? Oh, right,
LUGNET is not a democracy.
Thanks for the note about my positive contributions to the LEGO community on
LUGNET. In all avenues that you play on in LUGNET, I hear nothing but good
stuff about you, including specifically as an Admin.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) That was my paraphrasing of the original information I saw about the purpose for the committee, I apologize for not being specific. (...) I'm assuming the "you" is directed at the LTT, and not me personally, so I'll respond as such. The (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
