Subject:
|
Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:07:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1012 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:31:16 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, sparre@sys-323.risoe.dk (Jacob Sparre Andersen)
> writes:
> > Todd:
> > [...]
> >
> > > However, if one of the group's "elders" -- say, Terry or Jacob
> > > -- were to
> >
> > That feels just like when kids refer to me as "the man". ;-(
Really.
I know how you feel. :-(
I dread the day that someone offers me a "senior discount".
> Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. (Not that there's anything wrong with
> being old.) By "elders" I just meant "old-timers" or "well-versed
> participants" in the sense of people who have been around the group for a
> long time and know the ins and outs and what's right and what's wrong and
> are closely in tune with how the group dynamics work, etc.
>
> An "elder" of a group could be someone who's aged 21 but who's been part of
> a group since they were 17, even if there were lots of other people in their
> 30's who'd been part of the group for only a year or two.
Thanks for the moral support there Todd.
But I guess I am turning into an "elder".. or just an old fart?
> > > take the lead and put forth such a suggestion in a formal way, it would
> > > be my duty to support whatever decision the group made (as long as it
> > > was arrived at fairly).
> >
> > I must admit that I haven't (cared to?) read all JW's posts
> > on Lugnet, but from the ones I have read it appears that he
> > has a different attitude to LDraw parts development than
> > most of us.
> >
> > I don't think he as broken any Lugnet rules - and L-CAD
> > never had any formalised rules, so I feel it would be best
> > if we could manage this without revoking JW's posting
> > privileges.
>
> I hope that we can. I'm not holding my breath, though. No, he hasn't
> broken any LUGNET rules -- written or unwritten -- and in a strange sort of
> way, he has even contributed positively somewhat in that he has helped lead
> to more insight on the .DAT uploading problem.
He has contributed positively. He has pointed out errors in existing parts
(there is irony in that statement), and he discovered an annoying flaw in LEdit
that is caused by using capitalized STUD.dat statements in parts. (another
ironic twist).
> Yet, if there are any unwritten rules of collaborative projects (i.e.
> L-CAD), then I think Jonathan has broken many of these. It is particularly
> unfortunate that he has caused -- and continues to cause -- so much grief
> for Terry, who is probably managing a large enough workload already.
Some grief. Mostly annoyance at his not being able to see his own errors. And
not taking responsibility for those errors.
> > Could we request JW to discuss the quality of his parts in
> > private with a "mentor" before they are posted on Lugnet?
>
> Certainly.
>
> > I am willing to take on that job for a month.
>
> This would entail close communication with Jonathan via e-mail -- in the
> hopes of finding and correcting errors and methods prior to public exposure?
> Could you contact Jonathan privately and see if he is open to this idea?
>
>
> > If I don't see
> > significant improvement in that time I will suggest that we
> > decide to ignore his LDraw experiments collectively. This
> > could be done by revoking JW's posting privileges to some or
> > all of the lugnet.cad hierarchy,
That would be an excellent step. I hope Jonathan has the sense to take your
offer, Jacob. And I also hope he has the sense to _listen_ to your counsel,
and _implement_ your suggestions.
> If we need to take the drastic route and revoke posting privileges, it will
> be especially useful if the .dat group has been separated by that time into
> a parts sub-group...I gather that we would want to ban his posting of parts
> but allow his posting of models? The rules specific to the models area
> would of course have to disallow the posting of parts in order for the ban
> to be effective.
I do think that part submissions should be in a separate group. Much neater
that way. I go to cad.dat to see models and enjoy others creativety. Not to
have to slog through more new parts. I get enough of that as is. :-)
> > but I prefer the "kill file approach".
>
> But would stop the flame-throwing, the general ill will, and the grief for
> Terry? Although you could killfile Jonathan, you'd still see many of the
> follow-ups from other people. Effectively, I think you'd still see a lot of
> the stinky smoke.
>
> Killfiles are wonderful on Usenet because they are the only way to remove
> someone from a group. But their biggest advantage -- namely that each
> reader can decide on his/her own whether to filter out the offender --
> becomes a disadvantage in a collaborative project environment. Even if
> 98% of the group's population is filtering someone out, the people most
> intimately involved with the day-to-day processes must still monitor the
> entire process, lest something bad go unnoticed. So even filtered noise
> tends to drag the process down by wasting the time of those perhaps most
> critical or bottlenecked in the process.
>
> Here, it would seem to make sense to me to killfile someone in, say, the
> .market.auction newsgroup: a free-for-all forum and data dispersal group
> where nothing in particular is being collectively accomplished. On the
> other hand, the .cad.dev/L-CAD group is an actual community with a group
> personality and several goals being worked toward collectively. Although it
> may indeed be bad for Jonathan's personal growth if he were banned from
> posting parts, it would probably be better for the group overall if this
> happened -- rather than continuing to bear the strain and drag of putting up
> with his antics. But this is just my view. I haven't been around the L-CAD
> group long enough to know for sure. One thing's clear, though: if the group
> did ever decide to ban Jonathan, it is his own undoing.
>
> Note that JW is not just pure noise, as SB was in RTL when he kept posting
> those annoying OWT retail price lists. SB could be ignored because he
> wasn't doing any harm to the process. JW is harming the process, slowing it
> down.
>
> --Todd
You are correct, sir. As said in Usenet, "ditto"
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. (Not that there's anything wrong with being old.) By "elders" I just meant "old-timers" or "well-versed participants" in the sense of people who have been around the group for a long time and know the ins and (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
