[Theforum] Re: quick change
aardvark
roselli at earthlink.net
Wed May 8 15:31:41 CDT 2002
> From: "Warden, Matt" <mwarden at mattwarden.com>
>
> Adrian wrote:
> >it also went to theforum without fanfare...
>
> I don't like being called stupid. Or, I don't like having my position
> called stupid. Or, however you want to say it.
>
> So I didn't object.
>
> I'm sure there were others.
that was last week, before i said anything was stupid... nobody
objected, even when given plenty of opportunity...
i'm getting called a lot of things, but i'm not keeping my mouth shut
on my objections, so i don't buy that as an excuse...
> But, whatever. The change has been made.
>
> We've spent 2 days discussing a single option on thelist. It has a
> large effect, but, it's done and I KNOW that it won't be changing
> back.
we won't because thelist won't vote for it to change back? or
because you think i won't listen to thelist if they want it changed
back?
if it's the former, then why'd we go through all this? if it's the latter,
you're wrong...
> I'd rather move on and see if we can't do somethign with this
> organization.
+1
> Miriam, I thoroughly enjoyed the email your forwarded. The satire is
> only slightly exaggerated.
>
> Michele, I'm glad you said what you said.
+1 on both counts...
> Random thoughts:
>
> If you've got a problem with "dictatorial" leadership, trading one
> 'dictator" for another will only make you feel better while you agree
> with him.
>
> Irresponsibly handing out access isn't democracy.
+1 on both again, so let's get together that list of list admins... let's
vote on it, and move on from this issue...
> Adrian, I think it was a bit irresponsible to write in the email you
> sent to thelist that Dan changed thelist to subbed-only posting. You
> knew what you were implying. You're not stupid.
i implied that he changed it before handing it to me... i didn't agree
with *not* telling the membership first, so no, i wasn't going to say
that i did it... i'll present a unified front, but i won't lie...
> You can call for a vote on thelist if you want, but I can tell you
> right now what you'll get as a result from a voting form created by 10
> people who all want a certain result. Personally, I think it's a
> mistake to bring meta-discussions onto thelist. People who are
> interested in such discussions would be subscribed to this list. It's
> hypocritical to call certain things offtopic, and then start a huge
> voting thread. Lead by example, like we always have, blah, blah, blah
however we think it should be broached to thelist is fine by me... i
agree that meta discussions don't belong there, but i think it's
better to let them decide instead of imposing a decision...
> A spammer does not have to give a valid email address to subscribe and
> then post to thelist.
no, they can forge... plaintext can still get through, but at least
HTML might still be held...
> Adrian, most issues were brought up the first and second times you and
> others brought this up. But it was continuoally brought up, opponants
> tired of repeating themselves, they got accused of beign dismissive,
> and those who kept whining won in the end.
technical issues only, and only relating to a nebulous number of
users under a nebulous set of circumstances...
yesterday two people we know of (and a dozen others offlist to me)
brought up a *grave* concern (in their eyes), and it was dismissed...
i didn't let it get dismissed again, not when members had to
unsubscribe or otherwise deal with employment policy...
it's been blown into a lot more than it is, which is fine if you want to
obfuscate the points and paint me as a mean, embittered old coot
who just wants things his way... only my actions can prove
otherwise...
now, can we please move on to the additional list admin questions?
--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg
ISBN: 1904151035
More information about the theforum
mailing list