To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 12877
12876  |  12878
Subject: 
Trust: was Re: LUGNET members association
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:02:52 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
4105 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
   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.

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* perception of the Lenny/Larry/Chris issue, when Larry started tellimg me I was talking about the wrong stuff.

If is looks like a rubberstamp, smells like a rubberstamp, feels like a rubberstamp, I guess it could be a rubber stamp.

  
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

So, as you would have it, no one can talk about their own personal perception of a situation if it contracticts with the LTT’s perception of the event.

You’ve never, ever answered the question of how you justify the evidence you provided as as a violation of the ToU. It looks very suspicious to me and other people.

Is wishing that an LTT member quit, a violation of ToU? Show me where.

I wish Larry was no longer an Admin. I think LUGNET could be a much warmer and inviting place. Larry’s decisions are, the majority of the time, OK, but his implementation leaves much to be desired most of the time. It puts people off and drives them away: Willy Tschager, Paul (who Larry alread pointed out as an example.)


Kevin



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: LUGNET members association
 
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)

45 Messages in This Thread:


















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR