 | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) Just to let you know, this feeling is not limited to NELUG. In fact it is an international concern. If Larry were not an admin I wouldn't care, but he *is* and admin and therefore it affects LUGNET significantly. Unfortunatly there is no (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I think it is outrageous to completely ignore someone's input because you don't like them. Larry has told me that I am a "button pusher" and that my "opinion carries less and less weight with [him] over time" Disagree with the admins once, and (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I missed the significance of this on the first reading, but it got me thinking: Eventually, I assume the LUGNET Transition Team is going to hand over control to some other governing body once it gets sorted what the future for LUGNET is going (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) That's mostly accurate, I would add "or one or more site owner(s) remove a staff member from their position." The reason it's stated in such a way stems from the current structure of LUGNET ownership... Todd and Suzanne are the owners of (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I don't think that looking at only priveledges is a more accurate way to look at these issues. I think you only address part of the issue. The P&P and ToU already define everything as priveledges, but this means they can be taken away. Rights (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I think that's accurate, yes. (...) Playing devil's advocate, I would ask why you would expect that as a right? It's not a right I think you would expect from most other people. For example, I don't expect fair and just treatment from the (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
Just to make things clear...the views I expressed are my own, and not indicative of the rest on NELUG. Tom D (...) (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I would be interested to hear the rationale behind that statement, specifically why it is more of a safety valve than majority decision. The reason I ask is that I, as a non-admin, see it as *removing* a safety valve. ROSCO (19 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) The admin team has worked on a consensus basis, and the theory (OK, my theory) was that if a fellow admin was problematic enough to need to be removed, they would be the ones that would need to agree about it. A majority vote system might be (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) I assume you mean they, the (other) admins? (...) Well maybe, but I'm not sure "should be expected to come to consensus" is very useful here. What if a majority do agree that an admin is a problem, but they can't all come to a consensus? At (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
|
(...) In other words, we should complain to Todd and Suzanne directly? Either that or hope that the day will come when Todd and Suzanne will "let go" of Lugnet so that Lugnet really can become more democratic. Note that I mean no disrespect for (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
