Martin wrote: > > On Saturday, May 11, 2002, at 01:24 am, Ron Dorman wrote: > >> A. Erickson wrote: >> >>> Gloating, Ron? >> >> >> >> yes Amanda, that's how your post came across to me. > > > Ron > > If you wish to read and look for meaning below the surface, > sure, that's you're right. But it doesn't mean it's so (or indeed > that it's necessarily not so). I didn't come looking for anything other an enjoyable evening, reading the latest on progress being made. Instead I found more of the stuff I hoped was gone. > > Amanda wrote: > >> Plenty have left admin and other roles >> because they've had enough. But, that's been going on for awhile. You left out the first sentence. You are quite adept at out of context spins. > Since the earliest days of evolt, people with a strong involvement > have left for one reason or another. Solve left. Vince left after the > hosting was taken away from him. Ryan left. Other people left > the role they had - Amanda, David McCreath, Erika, Matt - > and stayed in the organisation. > > Y'know, through all those, evolt.org survived. If I left tomorrow, > would evolt.org die? No. If you left, would evolt.org die? No. > Evolt.ORG is bigger than *any* individual. It's the entire > community. If Dan wishes to reduce his involvement, is that > OK? Of course - no-one's forcing him or *any* of us to do > stuff we're not able or willing to do. And we've always recognised > that. > > But in reducing his involvement, is he going to do something > daft? I'd be very, very surprised. Dan's a professional at what > he does and would be very much able to ensure that any > transition was handled professionally. I'd expect no different > from anyone here. If Isaac left, would he pull his design at > ten minutes notice? No. If Jeff left, would he pull all his code > without an opportunity to migrate to something else? No. > No more than I'd pull the wiki. And all that despite each of > us having the ability to do so. > > Because *all* of us here are grown up professionals. And > no matter how much we argue with people, doing the *job* > is a matter of professional pride and reputation. > > Now, out there in the real world of evolt.org, there are several > thousand evolt.org members who depend on the people in > this group for a lot of support. And what we've built *is* very > good - why do you think we get offers from glasshaus to > be contributing authors and reviewers (at *least* 3 of us). > Why do we get featured in upcoming O'Reilly books? > Because what we've built as an organisation is *good*. > > Now please, cut the name calling (everyone who's thinking > of name-calling) and focus on stuff that actually matters, eh? Martin, When the same thing was done to dan, Michelle and Matt you had nothing like this to say. You even did some of the bashing your self if I remember correctly. I am fed-up with the double standard of it's ok for some, but not others. When list administration methods and personnel were changed in matter of a few hours with input from only a small percentage of our group you had no problem with it. However, a short time ago you grilled Michelle for stepping up and taking care admin tasks without approval (which she had, even if not from you) or accountability (which I think she demonstrated), even though she handled them very professionally and in evolt.org's best interest. Explain it! We do not yet have clear definitions of policy and responsibility. We do not yet have a defined and established organization. We are trying to build these things. Some of the people doing the most to help evolt.org have been mis-treated and it is past time for it to stop. You have been on both sides of the fence in the past. Where are you going to stand? Ron D.