[theforum] Brief notes on the sanctity of theforum, and double-standards relating thereto

Tara Cleveland tara.cleveland at gmail.com
Mon Sep 11 12:31:33 CDT 2006

On 9/11/06, Matt Warden <mwarden at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/06, John Handelaar <john at userfrenzy.com> wrote:
> > I consider this a security breach and am currently
> > dealing with it accordingly.
> You've got to be kidding me. Talk about gatekeeping.

Actually, I'm glad there's someone watching the gate.

While I don't have a problem with having a (much shorter) mission statement
on the home page, making such a drastic change to the look of the site
without a discussion is uncalled for and counter-productive at this

I don't remember (approving) or having any type of real discussion about
adding a mission statement on the home page or what that mission statement
would contain. I do remember two emails where people discussed the
*possibility* of that happening.

Someone who changes the evolt home page without the approval of theforum
should no longer have access to change said home page - at least until we
sort out why and how this happened (after all it could have been an honest
mistake or an error in judgement that won't happen again).

To me, this proves William's point that there's a whole lot of rushing
around going on and not a whole lot of measured and reasoned thinking about
*why* we're making changes or *where* these changes are going to take us.
And while I have been *very* frustrated at the glacial pace of change
thusfar, I do not think that this type of rash action helps anyone.

Whoa horsey!


[1] On top of that the change had invalid HTML which is unacceptable for
this organization AFAIC.

More information about the theforum mailing list