Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:06:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2107 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> > Another personal preference: don't call it a 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 to provide meaningful responses. If it were a rubber stamp
> group, I can see the distinction; but in this case, I believe the use of the
> term "committee" is very appropriate.
Well, as far as I could tell, the LPRV pretty much just had the privilage to see
the document before it went into effect. And, I'm not opposed to that, really. I
mean, I fully recognize and support the desire to strengthen a document before
making it public. But I still want the public to be able to give feedback. And
where that's concerned, I felt like the LPRV had the same rights and powers as
any general Lugnet user. We just got to see the document first, and got a
private channel to discuss it in.
There was never any sort of "power" in terms of checks and balances. We could
see it, and suggest things, but administration wasn't under any obligation to
even listen, let alone change things. It doesn't mean that I don't think they
would-- quite the opposite in fact-- but in terms of "power" and
"responsibility", the committee had nothing official, beyond our powers of
persuasion.
> If it does evoke some sense of business, I'm not seeing that as a bad thing,
> actually...
It's not *bad* per se. It's impersonal. It creates a sense of seperation between
administration and users, between the company and its customers. Suddenly, it's
not people helping one another out, it's people governing people. I'd like to
see this community go back to being personal and friendly. Not cold and
businesslike.
> Good question, I'll answer bluntly: because we didn't agree about the
> response.
And my point really is that that would've been fine to post. "We're not in
agreement yet" is better than a symphony of crickets. Plus, I'm sure there were
certainly *some* things that you did agree about which would have been fine to
post. "We're sorry Kevin resigned." "We hope we can continue with the LPRV
process." "We hope you'll reserve judgement until you've heard everything." Etc.
> We respect one another enough to not step on each other in that way.
I think maybe that's a problem. You should also respect one another enough to
know that if someone accidentally does, that it's forgivable. If you're all so
worried that someone else on the admin team will reprimand you for a simple
mistake, then maybe you don't respect each other enough.
As for the community at large, I think we can forgive you as well. "Oops, I'm
sorry, I was mistaken when I said X." You provide conflicting opinions on Lugnet
when not in an official manner? I think that's fine. I think the community (and
the admin team) should be able to forgive you.
> Overall, I'd like to see if it's at all possible for the LPRV to reconvene
> and continue the work. I think the group had made some very important points
> and progress.
Bam! I'm all for it. I think we're waiting on a couple things on the list, but
hopefully we'll be back on track.
> One more quick point: I think all the admins involved have a bone-level
> philosophy that whatever we do, it's to make things better for LUGNET and the
> LEGO community. Maybe some of the frustration and misinterpretations are
> because this is built into our bones, but we don't always verbalize it so
> it's not obvious.
I think the problem is perhaps overconfidence? Mandates vs. suggestions, that
kind of thing. I'm not sure how to characterize it, but it's how things are
presented.
And again, I'm not advocating 100% transparency, but certainly far more of it
than we've seen. It helps when users can see the process, because they can see
the reasoning behind it as it comes about, both pro and con. It helps build a
connection between the "outsiders" and the "insiders" to make everyone feel
closer, rather than further apart.
> If we are making a bunch of documents, it's not to strangle discussion
> or assign serf status to all non-admins... it's to make things better for
> everyone by providing accountability and setting expectations. Members
> rightly want more insight into what's happening; this is a big attempt at
> providing the insight.
I don't think this particular event was handled in the best way, but I will say
this: I think what's transpired has been better than if the administration
simply revealed the P&P to the public, already in effect. Although the overall
impression may be that this event has been negative, I think it would've been
even MORE negative if things had been kept private even longer. And certainly,
there's wide open spaces where improvement can run around and frolic.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LPRV?
|
| (...) Well, I had to pick somewhere to ask this, I chose here... I would like to know where the "V" came from? I never saw anything that started with "V" attached to (URL) the committee charter>, only the "V" in "review". Was it just a typo that (...) (19 years ago, 26-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
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 (...) (19 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
|
|
|
|
