| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
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.
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?
|
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 their contributions,
despite their personal attacks, that’s more serious, isn’t it?
|
Is saying someone wigged out a personal attack? Is it beaving to a
different standard? DOesn’t sound like you are unpholdin’ to you own rules.
You commiteed to do better.
|
|
| |
Well, Lenny, Larry and I have had some conversations, especially when the
LPRV was first formed, and he acknowledged that he felt that Admins should be
held to a higher standard hat on, or hat off. So Larry beleives there should
be a double standard. He gave a solumn promise then, and I beleive hes
trying his bes to uphold that promise now.
Not everthing I try to say is to “push” buttons, and I’m not trying to use
something from a private email to beat him up with.
Larry questioned my integrity on a few points, and I’ll say it again, he was
right. I’ve tried to point out my mistakes for all to see, and correct them
when I can. Larry did me a favor questioning my integrity, and I’ve done
what I can to rectify the situation, including defending Larry in this forum
by stating that the “abusive email” charge was wrong. My emotions got the
better of me. I’m human.
You may not believe me, but I’d like to get to a positive resolution on this
topic. I’m not on a witch hunt, I’m trying to be heard. If I felt heard why
would I keep talking? I can think of a hundred things I’d rather do that
debate this stuff.
Larry, if you took my statements above as button pushing, it was not mean as
such, I was returning the favor you did me when you rightfully questioned my
integrity.
This has been a pretty tough situation for Larry, but so far I would give him
pretty high marks for his efforts at living to a higher standard.
|
Thanks. For everything you said.
“I can think of a hundred things I’d rather do than debate this stuff.”
Ya, me too! I’ll see your 100 and raise you a hundred.
Emotions have run high here, but your recent actions convince me I was wrong to
impugne your integrity without first seeking to communicate so that we could
seek to understand the issues, and I am sorry for that. Hopefully this has been
a wakeup call for both of us (and for others in the community, too)... we need
to increase the trust among those of us that truly care, and not let button
pushers and button pushing get to us.
I’ll reiterate.
The admins want feedback and will consider it carefully. Where we’ve erred, we
will work to correct it, and we will work to put processes in place to ensure
that it doesn’t happen again (but trying to watch out for not becoming so mired
in rules and process that we have to consult a 1243 page rules manual before we
say anything!!!). But we would appreciate some patience and understanding from
everyone, some communication first before jumping to conclusions, some assuming
we mean the best and are doing the best we can, rather than assuming that we’re
powerhungry megalomaniacs.
Is this incident “over”? No. We’ve all still got some work to do, notably to get
that P&P done enough that we’re comfortable sharing it with everyone, instead of
just a circle of people chosen for their differing perspectives and willingness
to help out...
...because when it’s out there, and when it’s had a chance to be assimilated and
put in effect, we have a really NEAT technology to start using, that will reduce
the need to ask for cancels, reduce the need to send notes to people warning
them, or the need to make posts suggesting that things are off topic, or the
need to make posts asking people to consider rewording stuff, or the need to
stress out about a bit of mild profanity... reduce all those needs by orders of
magnitude.
The ToU won’t change, but we’ll have a new, (MUCH softer touch, I think) tool,
to help us out, and in cases where this tool doesn’t do the trick, standardised
letters to send out, to reduce the chance that personal feelings will creep in.
We’re itching to get to that state as fast as we can commesurate with taking the
opinions of all into consideration and doing what’s best for LUGNET.
The above is all my opinion, it’s not official, there is still stuff to get
worked through, such as getting the committee moving along at a good clip,
getting the P&P completely finalised, and giving the community time to think
about and comment on it. At that point we’ll be where we want to be process wise
and we then hope to tackle the loose ends in the ToU. (We COULD have done the
ToU first, or tried to do them both at once, but this is the order we chose to
try to tackle them in)
To bring this back on topic (poor Rob, it’s not like HE’S ever hijacked anyone
else’s thread!), forming a members association, in my opinion, and my opinion
only, is not a thing that has to happen first before we can do those things.
XFUT to just admin.general
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Larry, always the competitive one :P Levity is a good thing. and by the way, you're welcome. (...) I'm very pleased to hear this Larry, with this we can work to go forward. I look forward to it. If the LTT and LPRV (...) (20 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
| <SNIPPAGE> (...) ... (...) </SNIPPAGE> If you guys aren't going to stop hijacking my thread, I might as well join in on the claim-jumping too... I'd officially like to make this a red letter date. A day to remember. A day for the history book (...) (20 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
