Instead of "passing judgement" on an issue, we could instead seek to provide objective analysis of issues based on our combined experience. To that end, we could provide a majority opinion plus one or more minority opinions (although not too many...it has to be reasonable and accessible to the "tl;dr" audience). I don't believe the minority opinions will frequently be in direct opposition to the minority opinion, but instead will be a different takes from different perspectives within our organization.
Otherwise, we still risk splintering of our group by having members openly declaring their disagreement with our designated figurehead, whenever that occurs. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 09:05, Michael C Tiernan <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Derek J. Balling" <[email protected]> > >> A common problem with this sentence is the "representing all of us" >> sentiment. There's precious few topics which any position could be >> said to represent "all of us". > > Yea. The correct wording should have been "to represent LOPSA." > > Which also means, we agree, as members, to be represented by whomever is > chosen to engage the "outside world". If we don't agree to this, we will > quickly look like a bunch of ranting twits and the value that LOPSA > represents will get flushed down the drain. > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
