Also for the record, I was not intending to accuse you of doing anything
wrong.
I was trying to explain why some people see this in a less positive light
than they are expected to.
David Lang
On Fri, 25 May 2012, Matt Simmons wrote:
Hi David,
For the record, I'm not in charge. I'm a volunteer. I'm not on the board,
I'm in no position of authority, and no one asked me to do it. I did it as
a direct response to the LOPSA Live Candidate Forum yesterday where this
was brought up again and again.
I just decided to spend some time addressing something that I saw as
lacking. There's certainly no personal agenda other than to make sure that
everyone who wants to take part in the organization can.
This organization is comprised of members that do the work of the
organization. All it takes to do _anything_ in LOPSA is for someone to do
it. I didn't rob anyone's bandwidth except my own (and, I suppose, the
attention of the people who are on this thread, however much that may be).
The wagon isn't pulled by the front, it's pushed by the back.
--Matt
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2012, Doug Hughes wrote:
And as an aside, I'm quite disappointed with an earlier threat to drop
membership if any effort is spent on drafting a harassment policy. This is
like taking the approach, to use an analogy which I'm sure you, my
brethren, can relate, that we're not going to have any plan in place for
extending disk capacity until we run out of space. Isn't that the worst
time to be figuring out what you are going to do next?
I don't think it was a "don't talk about this or I'll quit" threat. I
think it was more a matter of if the organization starts spending too much
time on drafting policies, especially ones that are somewhat tangential to
the organization, it makes it look like the organization has lost it's way
and isn't worth supporting any longer.
I think that many people see drafting of "just to be prepared" policies
(including, but not limited to this one) as a result of one of the
following.
1. something happened and this is a response.
2. someone is pushing a personal agenda.
3. the people in charge ran out of more useful things to do.
note that the 'something happened' does not neccessarily mean in this
organization. It could be an incident in a similar organization, a new law
requiring it, or something else.
Personally, I would have put this sort of thing well down on the priority
list, but the policy that I read last night (since it's a wiki, it may have
changed :-) was general enough that I don't have strong opinions against
it. But if the debate over it becomes too distracting, it could still be a
net loss for the organization.
I will say that the fact that the list of harassment causes didn't just
list the "normal PC targets", but also listed the example of 'choice of
technology' went a long way towards changing the tone of the piece from
"yet another PC statement" to instead be a much broader statement of "be
polite". I also liked the fact that it does not specify any particular
response (beyond that at least one warning would be given)
David Lang
______________________________**_________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss<https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
_______________________________________________
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/
