General Discussions about LUGNET : 12853


Administrative / General / 12853	12852 \| 12854

Subject:	Re: LUGNET members association
Newsgroups:	lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:12:57 GMT
Viewed:	8481 times

In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:

In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:

I think it does. If there was total trust, we wouldn’t require a policy document.

And THAT’S the crux of why LUGNET is at least partly broken. The admins don’t trust (some of) the users and (some of) the users (not necessarily the same ones) don’t trust the admins.

OK let me put it another way, if it’s worth creating a P&P doc, it’s worth assuring the users they will be listened to.

Yeah, I don’t believe this. The LPRV is a great example. The Admins gathered a group of people and said, we trust you guys! We want to know what you think! And then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started accusing the Admins of creating a rubber stamp committee.

If you don’t trust me, then no matter HOW many times I say “I want to listen” - you will always think I’m lying to you.. or being sarcastic or whatever. I’ve seen it happen quite a few times. This is an excellent example - Scott accuses me of being insincere when I was trying to reassure. What then?

-Lenny

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: LUGNET members association
(...) Well, as long as it was Scott, it was easy enough to disregard. It was just Scott, after all, noted button pusher. But when we get this mistrust from people we used to respect before they wigged out, or people we still do want to respect for (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

		Trust: was Re: LUGNET members association
(...) You told us you wanted us to wordsmith it and fix syntax and gramatical errors. When I first started proposing ideas that were not in the document, a member of LTT started arguing with me. In an attempt to look at each case, I applied my (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)

		Re: LUGNET members association
(...) Lenny, I never said all the people would believe such assurances all the time. But I still think it's worth providing them. ROSCO (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: LUGNET members association
(...) I think that is irrelevant here so I will not agree or disagree. (...) That's all fine, given that the ToU says "reason X will result in a timeout of 48 hours". However, I doubt the ToU will ever cover every possible reason for timeout, and a (...) (19 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

45 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

Custom Search