[Theforum] (no subject)

[Dean Mah]

If no one person was intended to be singled out, why respond to Dan's
message.  His message, that which you quoted, stated simply that he
was removing himself from a lot of evolt.org duties.  Why say "As are
we all, Dan." and then proceed to re-explain to him on what we are all
working towards?  Sounded like singling out to me, consciously or
subconsciously.  I believe your message could have been attached to
Amanda's second post with equal effect but wasn't.  Not that it really
matters.  I was mainly just curious.  I'll drop it now as others have
suggested.

Dean

Who is John Galt?


Martin writes:

> On Saturday, May 11, 2002, at 03:01  am, Dean Mah wrote:
>
> > I didn't see anything in Dan's message or his recent actions that
> > indicate *any* complaining, gloating, or anything.  I guess I don't
> > understand why Dan was singled out below for this explanation again.
>
> Dean
>
> Didn't say there was. "shouldn't be *any* complaining [etc]"
> applies to everyone, with no one person singled out.
>
> Martin
>
> > Martin writes:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 11, 2002, at 01:41  am, Daniel J. Cody wrote:
> >>
> >>> A number(inculding yourself) have asked, in
> >>> varying levels of politeness, for me to give up
> >>> responsibilites/power/duties/etc up,
> >>
> >> ...as indeed has happened to *all* Admin people. It's
> >> a process of opening it up to the community which has
> >> been happening since the autumn.
> >>
> >>> which I'm in the process of doing.
> >>
> >> As are we all, Dan. And that's A Good Thing. There
> >> shouldn't be *any* complaining, gloating or anything other
> >> than quiet acknowledgement that it's happening, and
> >> the evolt.org community is running itself, rather than
> >> a small group of people running evolt.org on evolt.org's
> >> behalf.
> >>
> >> Like it says in the footer, we should *all* end up being
> >> in a position where we can leave without damaging the
> >> community. I could leave, you could leave, everyone here
> >> could leave, and the community continues without us.
> >> And that's fine, because the community is ultimately more
> >> important.