Martin wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 10:17 pm, Michele Foster wrote: > >> Someone explain something to me please. Why is it that not just a few >> weeks >> ago I was personally blasted because I responded to a list membership >> email > > > Some factual amendments: > > 1) You responded to a a query which was *not* related to list > admin > http://admin.evolt.org/email/index.cfm?action=detail&cid=24578 > "The text area used by <pre> </pre> tags in evolt articles looks ugly in > Mozilla - it's just too big. Any chance of changing the stylesheet so it > displays a little smaller?" the response was very clean and professional and promoted evolt.org. what's the problem? > > 2) The role you had been offered and had accepted was to > do list admin - you had answered a query relating to this > earlier in the day without any criticism > http://admin.evolt.org/email/index.cfm?action=detail&cid=24773 > "I've been trying to log into the evolt site to turn my mail delivery > back on after a vacation. I can't log in, and I can't seem to get my > password e-mailed to me." again a good response. > > 3) You were not 'blasted', you were invited to rejoin admin and > accept the accountability of being named as such (rather than > just taking the rights without accepting the accountability): > http://lists.evolt.org/adminarchive/Week-of-Mon-20020415/003381.html > "is this you wanting to rejoin Admin for the rest of Admin tasks? > If so, great (I think I've said a number of times that you would be very > welcome back as an Admin)." I also cited 2 posts which were part of the > previous time you used admin access without being accountable for it, > one of which said: > "the only difference between what you are doing and what being on admin > means is that you acknowledge you're acting as an admin..." Martin, your email was a little confrontational at the beginning. the many that followed it were much more so. I believe that handling the requests in the manner she did showed accountability, even if not in your preferred way. > >> as Dan gave me access (actually he never took it away, I just wasn't >> using >> it)? I've seen a call made for others to help Adrian administer >> thelist. >> Ok, fair enough, but umm.. where was that decision made? > > > I don't think a decision was made to ask for offers, although I > think that it's implicit in > http://lists.evolt.org/theforumarchive/Week-of-Mon-20020415/003858.html > that it should be an open process which rights are given out on > abilit, willingness to serve and need. it's ok to take liberties, based on implicity, in some cases and not others. where's the consistency you promote? is that not how things had been done before that was offensive to many of us? > >> How come now it's >> not an Admin Only Task just because Adrian's in charge of it? > > > As above, i don't think it ever was, but if it were, the answer > would be "because we're past that, and that's A Good Thing" > > None of this is intended as a personal cricitism btw, Michele - > as before, simply addressing the facts. How about we address the facts consistently? Not on as "this suits me" basis. Geez . . . did we not decide to move forward and leave all this type stuff behind us Martin? It's OK now, to take liberties that help evolt.org, it wasn't then! Gimme a break!!!!! No, give me a reason why it is ok now to take liberties in evolt.org's interest when it wasn't before. I'm all for helping evolt.org and anything that helps evolt.org. Your post is almost blasphemous and I think illuminates some the problems we have been having. I can only hope that what I see in your post is a misunderstanding! Ron D.