[Theforum] RE: leadership

[A. Erickson]

> Things get handled well enough as they are now.  This means things
will
> not fall apart while we organize and define good processes (the other
> things we need to do with our time).

So, this is a "nuh-uh" post?

Things get handled. Whether or not they get handled "well enough" is
highly debatable. If things were getting handled well then we wouldn't
be having this discussion.

Clearly and for the record, it is my understanding that things are "well
enough" for Ron Dorman. So noted. Moving on.

> I have never been anti-process.  I have been against implementing an
> uneeded process and/or process that has not been thought through and
> planned to support evolt.org needs.

That's not a very bold stance, Ron. Everyone is for smart stuff and
against stupid stuff. Big deal.

You have talked about people disagreeing just to disagree -- here I
posit that you reply to 99% of my posts merely to disagree with *me*.
Saying that you're for smart stuff and against stupid stuff just isn't a
stance that needs mentioning unless you simply want to disagree to
disagree.

Here's another example:

> However I believe our top leadership is just fine.

Well, that's just fine, isn't it? Just fine.

> I don't think the foundering is due to bad leadership.

I see a lot of people frustrated, going back over the same ground again
and again and spinning wheels in old ruts. In fact I see the actual
leadership of our group stymied by the point of power in the group. So,
perhaps you are right -- we have (good) leadership that is mostly
ineffectual because they don't have the power.

- amanda

___________________________________
amanda at gawow.com + http://gawow.com