Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:22:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Nowhere in the charter did it say "stay on task and avoid time-consuming loops
> like debating personalities or picking apart past actions".
That was my paraphrasing of the original information I saw about the purpose for
the committee, I apologize for not being specific.
> Why would you
> create a charter with the working assumption was that the committee wouldn't
> behave the way you want.
I'm assuming the "you" is directed at the LTT, and not me personally, so I'll
respond as such. The committee was formed with the assumption it would follow
the charter but at times would need guidance and questions answered. From my own
experience in leading small groups, there is usually the need to have somebody
make sure the process stays on track.
> 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.
What I think wasn't clearly stated or heard was this: the committee should point
out and suggest changes on what they considered problem areas. If this is a
problem area, I suggest that the committee is actually in a very good position
to flag these issues so they can be dealt with. Maybe I'm not looking at it from
the same viewpoint, but to me, this is exactly the kind of thing we were hoping
to find and fix.
> I guess I was supposed to just check for clerical errors and move on.
If you received that impression before, I believe it was unintended.
> > > 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 last
> month.
As stated in a couple of other posts, the way admins say things has been a
source of frustration, and I think we all understand a need to measure words
more carefully. The core statement is correct, but by itself can be misconstrued
that because the LUGNET membership cannot FORCE the staff to do anything, that
there is complete imbalance in administration. This is a key point to get
across... LUGNET exists for the membership, not in spite of it, and any actions
or decisions by those who are in charge are for the overall health of this
community. I get the strong impression that this is not believed by many people.
I can't force you to do something you don't want to do. But maybe if I ask you
to do something, and explain why I think it's a good idea, maybe you'll agree to
do it on your own. It's the same thing on LUGNET.
> Does that convey that I have any power, or perhaps is it a way to tell
> me to sit down and shut up?
I don't understand why there is an issue about power or having authority over
someone else. Could you elucidate on that?
> It is my strong belief that the LTT *did* abuse power.
I don't agree, although I understand your contention. There are two points here.
First, did the admin staff have the right and/or responsibility to temporarily
suspend members? Yes. That's really not negotiable, and I hope the reason why
it's not in question is clear. Second, should the admin staff have done what
they did? That's open to debate (and continues to be debated). Tempers were
heated and several people involved have admitted that they would not have said
or done some actions if they'd had time to reflect on things. It also clearly
showed us that some sort of publicly-available guidelines and rules of conduct
would help determine what actions a staff member should take in different
circumstances. We're trying to learn from the past to avoid making the same
mistakes in the future.
> 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?
By writing the P&P, we are trying to avoid repetition of actions that are
questioned by many people - like this one.
> 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.
There's been discussion among the admin staff about off-site information with
regard to LUGNET members. In essense, I think we all agree that what happens off
LUGNET, stays off LUGNET. But we don't feel comfortable making that an absolute
because of the (remote) potential that there may actually be something that
happens elsewhere which could affect LUGNET. Here's an (unlikely but possible)
example... say somebody on LUGNET advertises an event somewhere and encourages
kids to attend. Then say that someone is arrested and charged with something
particularly heinous, like making child pornography. If that became known to the
admin staff, would we still want to allow that person to solicit attendance of
children at an event they were responsible for putting on? Personally, I would
not want to feel shackled to an absolute ban of considering offsite action on
the off-chance it was necessary in the future.
Can the wording of this section be adjusted, or the conditions better defined?
Sure. The LPRV can tell us how they think it should be.
I understand your concern, and it would be a valid one if, as you contend, the
staff of LUGNET did abuse their positions. But I simply don't agree with the
base concept that if an admin CAN do something bad, they WILL do something bad.
Creating the P&P documentation in the first place (regardless of whether or not
you believe it fundamentally flawed) is a serious, honest attempt at setting
LUGNET members' expectations and providing recourse when something doesn't work
the way it should. I urge you and everyone else reading this to take it as a
sign of good faith that concerns are heard, and we are trying to resolve them.
Members of the LPRV are in a very good position to point out the flawed
assumptions and help us fix the problems they see in the documents. Maybe some
of the things presented won't make it into the final version; maybe you won't
agree with everything they have to say. But the only way to change it is to help
us fix it.
I don't know the status of the LPRV committee. Hopefully it will be able to
continue. If it doesn't continue, then something else will need to be done to
get these documents ready for implementation. I believe they are vital to the
future of LUGNET.
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) <snip> (...) You are correct. I was referring to the LTT as a group. Had you been chair I would have had much more faith in the process. <snip> (...) It most certainly was what I received. (...) I do not beleive that the way Chris was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) I think this is a fantastic discussion-- one that we started on the list, but (as I've said on the list) I *REALLY* want admin feedback like this from admins on a continual basis. Seriously, this is the most effectual I've felt yet about the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: Thanks, Kelly, for your comments about this. I have only one point I'd like to make: (...) Whereas I think it is inevitable *eventually*. That's not a slur against admins, it's just human nature. But (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
