[Theforum] RE: leadership

A. Erickson amanda at gawow.com
Thu Apr 18 15:51:00 CDT 2002

> That's one perspective.  Another perspective is that part of the crew
attempted mutiny.

Um, which part would that be exactly?

> Some of us won't discuss anything else until we
get our way.

You're right. Our captain is very adept at being incommunicado except,
of course, in his blog.

> I don't think access should be more widely distributed.

I should clarify...there's different skillsets and mindsets of people
who have taken very active roles in our little organization. However,
there are some who have been granted top-level privileges and some who
have not. I think there is a goodly number of people among those who
have not that need access and top-level privileges. I want leadership
and I want it to be fair. I think we have leadership in one corner and
actual power in the other. It's ineffectual and disappointing.

> I think we should
focus on getting useful processes figured out and defined.  That will
for a better crew to be established and then distribute access where
to support evolt.org.  Things get handled well enough as they are, we
to do other things with our time.

That sounds to me like complete doublespeak. How can you say "we should
focus on getting useful processes figured out and defined" and then say
"things get handled well enough as they are, we need to do other things
with our time." Those two things are mutually exclusive. I'm shocked,
too, to hear you supporting processes. Haven't you been among the
rigorously anti-process? I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Your latter statement is also incredibly dismissive and is one of the
top reasons why I think defining or attempting progress as a group is
futile at this point. Too many people are dismissive, dismissive,

I want stronger and better leadership for our group. I want that
leadership defined. That's it. A solid leadership must be in place made
up of a group of people who are dispersed globally and across a range of
skill and mindsets for us to go forward with a degree of success.

The entire evolt.org group was in place and working before we all met in
person and signed on with Dan's non-profit agenda. It was afterwards in
which things fell apart and I feel that it was due to Dan's dishonesty
(intended or unintended), his unwillingness to participate in that which
he started and his subsequent cutting off of access and cutting off the
group as a whole. Bad leadership to say the least. (And, I'm sorry to be
so blunt here but I do feel that Dan already knows how I feel and I
don't want to pretend that I feel differently.)

I think that there is much that can be salvaged out of current set-up. I
like all of the lists that we have going. I think the community features
are great. I like the amount of participation that is happening all over
the place. However, I think we're foundering without solid leadership.

If we truly want a flat structure where all can participate and none are
excluded from anything then lets turn the site into a WIKI and just have
one list. We had a discussion a long time ago about barriers and I think
many salient points were made back then. I think leadership + community
+ barriers can all coexist peacefully and make the organization thrive.
But the leadership has to come first.

- amanda

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

More information about the theforum mailing list