Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:27:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2396 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
> > 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.
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>
> > 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.
It most certainly was what I received.
>
> > > > 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 do not beleive that the way Chris was suspended in the Larry/Lenny/Chris
situation was good for the community. Not for a minute.
In other cases, I think that more diplomacy and less "hard policing" is also
best for the community.
All in all, the perception of whether actions by the LTT, and its goodness for
the community depends a lot on how the actions are dispatched. I've been seeing
important people leaving LUGNET because of the execution, not because of the
intent.
> 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.
I tried this with Larry as chair, and all I got from Larry was "LUGNET is not a
democracy".
It is my feeling that Larry is the most controversial of all the members of the
LTT. His behaviors with or without Admin hat on raise a lot of eyebrows.
The timing was such that the Larry/Lenny/Chris situation moved the writing of
the P&P up in schedule and priority. To me, it seemed like a conflict of
interest that Larry is the point of contact between the LPRV and the other
members of the LTT. Can you see how I might feel this way?
Did Larry share my concern with the entire LTT?
Then I'm told by another member of the group that Larry said "Tell Kevin to quit
bitching!".
Talk about talking to the deaf.
I had few options.
> > 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?
Yes. Certainly. It is because in my opinion power was abused by two of the LTT
in the Larry/Lenny/Chris situation, and then one of the two ended up as chair of
the committee that is to review a document to prevent it in the future.
It is my contention that one of the LTT has a pathology with serious power and
control issues. It is also my contention that those power and control issues
seriously impair this member's ability to administer LUGNET in a community
friendly way.
Given that my experience with the chair from the past has told me not to trust
him with power, combined with known incidents that I didn't have personal
insight into (MICHLUG elections?), I have an issue with him as chair.
The feedback from the LTT indicates that the justification of suspending Chris
was perfectly clear and there are no issues, even when members of LUGNET
disagree repeatedly.
The LTT did acknowledge they made mistakes, but given what I read in the P&P,
they did not see the same mistakes I saw.
> > 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.
I fully understand that the admins have the power to suspend members, and it
must be this way.
> > 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.
There was no language in the P&P describing what qualifies as justification.
Lenny clearly felt he was justified, and would to it again in the same case
(from my understanding of reading his posts.)
> > 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.
The difference between your scenario and the one from the past is that a member
of the LTT brought Chris' contest to LUGNET, then suspended him for it. The
justification given was without merit, but related to the contest (Lenny posted
about the contest, Larry posted about the contest, Chris posted a sinple "I
wish" post, and Chris got suspended for it.)
Later Lenny changes his tune and says that he suspended Chris because of only
LUGNET based activity, yet provided nothing but vague references. Pardon me for
suspecting Lenny's true motivation.
In my opinion, Larry and Lenny should have been removed from the decision making
process before Chris got suspended. We've asked if that was the case, and never
got an answer.
> Can the wording of this section be adjusted, or the conditions better defined?
Yes, it could be made much more specific, but as it stood, it just enabled a
repeat of the abuse of power I saw in the past.
> Sure. The LPRV can tell us how they think it should be.
This was not the impression I got.
>
> 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.
For me, this depends totally on the character of any given admin.
I'll do my best to take your words in good faith. Diplomatic answers to
questions go a very long way. I appreciate your trying to understand my
position.
> 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.
I completely agree we need a P&P.
If the LTT empowers a group to review it, then the LTT also needs to avoid
censoring the group and telling the group what they can and can't talk about.
One member of the LTT told a member of the LPRV to "Tell kevin to quit
bitching". This is censorship in my mind.
This action was taken by a member of the LTT so I resigned. I did not resign
quietly so this could continue invisibly. I resigned publicly so it could be
seen for what it was.
>
> Kelly McKiernan
> LUGNET Administrator
Kevin
LUGNET member
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
