| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > > I'm not aware of any reviewing decisions (decisions, not implementations of
> > > them, we have already acknowledged some issues with one specific one) that have
> > > been incorrect, since I started being involved in making them. Are you?
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > We haven't really seen 'em, so how can we tell if they're incorrect?
>
> ?
>
> Sorry, could you clarify that? Every reviewing action lately has been seen,
> there haven't been any non public timeouts given in quite a while.
This wasn't in reference directly to 'the incident'. This was in reference to
the perception that the administration is cloistered, 'working furiously'on a
'boldnew future' for LUGNET and will come outwith it when they're good and
ready. Thus, the response to the preception from some in the community, is
'more openness please'.
>
> > It's a matter of trust. Well, a prime minister of some country got on the telly
> > last night and talked about that. Trust is earned by the inch and lost by the
> > yard. Again, right or wrong, the perception is that the admin team is
> > 'untrustworthy', even by some members of the admin team.
>
> ?
>
> Can you clarify that? I see no signs of that!
Admin might be misdirected--on the LPRV, then. My bad.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
