[DesDev] RE: [Content] steering list

[Martin]

ccing this to desdev as
1) it concerns them
2) content archives are closed.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Jeff Howden wrote:

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > From: Martin
> >
> > Jeff, you're not a steering rep any more.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> actually, don't remember there being any votes, only people offering to take
> the positions.

If desdev didn't want to have a formal vote, then that's desdev's
business. If you have a problem with the desdev process, then take it up
with desdev.

However, your memory is faulty:
http://lists.evolt.org/desdevarchive/2003-November/000445.html
as an example.

> i also don't remember posting to the effect that i was offering to "step
> down".

Your term of office came to an end. Actually, your term of office
actually came to an end 12 months after it started, ie last summer. My
invitation to steering members to step down en masse was merely a
courtesy.

You had a chance to dispute this while it was still in steering
discussion - 3 chances actually:
http://lists.evolt.org/steeringarchive/2003-September/000432.html
http://lists.evolt.org/steeringarchive/2003-October/000438.html
http://lists.evolt.org/steeringarchive/2003-November/000440.html

and failed to do so. If you abstain from the discussion (and this is when
you legitimately had steering subs so could follow minute by minute), you
cannot complain about the result afterwards.

Each group then chose its reps. Of the groups you are on, none of them
nominated you, nor did you nominate yourself.

Desdev had 2 members self-nominate, both of whom recieved undisputed
support from desdev. That was your 4th chance.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > Obviously not.  It was a side-point that I was
> > > reminded of.  The point being that, in most cases,
> > > exceptions to the current standards shouldn't have to
> > > be made for the benefit of one person or one group.
> >
> > Also, exceptions are in the grant of evolt (iow, you
> > convince evolt that you need an exception), not the
> > presumption of the individual.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> hmmm, new rules as we go along.

No, the rules are. You're trying to remain on steering without just cause.

If you want to try to change things, fine, go ahead and try. But the
burden of effort is with you.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > However, to repeat what I said a moment ago in another
> > post, it's a bit pointless for us to discuss it on
> > content.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> where else would you suggest it be discussed then?

1) desdev as its their reps you're challenging
2) steering as they
  a) will confirm desdev's legitimate reps
  b) will confirm (or not) that they are not an open subscription group
  c) will decide whether you be allowed to remain subbed on the basis
     of not having speaking rights

Cheers
Martin

-- 
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie