[theforum] Brief notes on the sanctity of theforum, and double-standards relating thereto

Martin Burns martin at easyweb.co.uk
Mon Sep 18 09:47:20 CDT 2006

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:03:24 +0100, John Handelaar  wrote:

> My take:
> a)  Someone starts shouting about how shit everything is

...and at this point, it's already gone wrong.

Really, how many times do we have to go through this? If
you (generic) come in with this approach it *is* going to fail,
You *are* going to be disillusioned.

With a bit of effort and thought, and understanding on how
evolt works, you'd do this:

a) Someone thinks how shit everything is
b) Someone talks it privately with a few people who may well
   have insight (even if someone disagrees with them)
c) Someone comes up with a few actual concrete proposals that
   are evolutionary, not revolutionary
d) Someone continues to talk to the few people, particularly
   those who have a history in getting stuff done, and gets
   some private momentum
e) Someone *then* comes publically to theforum and *calmly*:
   i) Explains the problem
  ii) Describes some likely solutions
 iii) Outlines a plan for getting there
  iv) Gives the opportunity for the private momentum to become public,
   v) Allows others to cordially disagree/improve on points i-iii

Which takes a bit more effort and time than simple complaining, but
ultimately is much more likely to get something done. How do you think
we moved to tempest? Moved to Drupal? Both of those were being worked
on a *long* way back.

To quote the immortal Joshua Lyman:

Max is an idiot.

Max is my nephew.

No kidding. He doesn't understand the budget process, he doesn't understand committee 
structure, he thinks decisions are made in meetings...

This is an extremely--

...and he can't play at this level. Mrs. Bartlet, you're the First Lady, you need a Chief 
of Staff, a real one. If you want your agenda taken seriously, put a professional face on it.

> (Now going back to the 'teo-in-a-can' effort.  Matt's offered
> to assist, but so far nobody's asked for a copy of the
> finished item.  Which is depressing, but expected.)

To clarify:
[15:19] <genghis> yeah, I rather meant 'other than the usual suspects'. 
so not *everyone* is totally apathetic. :-)


"Names, once they are in common use   | Spammers: Send me email to
 quickly become mere sounds, their    | -> yumyum at easyweb.co.uk
 etymology being buried, like so many | my filter. Currently killing over
 of the earth's marvels, beneath the  | 99.9% of all known spams stone dead.
 dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie     | http://nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam

More information about the theforum mailing list