[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

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.


> 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

now, can we please move on to the additional list admin questions?

Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
ISBN: 1904151035

More information about the theforum mailing list