[Theforum] (no subject)

[Martin]

On Saturday, May 11, 2002, at 05:16  pm, Dean Mah wrote:

> If no one person was intended to be singled out, why respond to Dan's
> message.

I was *addressing* Dan, sure. Just like you addressed me.

> 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.

Sorry, Dean, that's a 180degree misinterpretation of what I meant.
What I was trying to say was "Dan, don't feel singled out in being
asked to give up your powers and authority. All Admin people have
been asked to give them up to the wider community, and that asking
also had varying degrees of politeness. If we're to be an open
community, then it's enevitable that those who held the authority
beforehand will have less afterwards."

And hey, we're all still here. None of us did anything which damaged
evolt.org to the wider community. Any one of us could, but didn't, as
the evolt.org community is more important.

> I believe your message could have been attached to
> Amanda's second post with equal effect but wasn't.

Actually, it was, just a few posts on, once I'd seen how people
perceived what Amanda had written. As I've already said to you:

>> "shouldn't be *any* complaining, gloating [etc]"
>> applies to everyone

Applies to Amanda, me, you, Dan, pretty much anyone who's inclined
to make meta-comments about the fact that it's happening.

Cheers
Martin

>   Not that it really
> matters.  I was mainly just curious.  I'll drop it now as others have
> suggested.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---
> evolt.org wiki: http://freezope2.nipltd.net/acorn/evolt/
> -
> How can you help?
> http://freezope2.nipltd.net/acorn/evolt/FactFindingMission
> -
> I have every intention of helping evolt.org turn into something that
> doesn't *need* me...
>
>
_______________________________________________
email: martin at easyweb.co.uk             PGP ID:	0xA835CCCB
	martin at members.evolt.org      snailmail:	30 Shandon Place
   tel:	+44 (0)774 063 9985				Edinburgh,
   url:	http://www.easyweb.co.uk			Scotland