Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying. I took it wrongly then. I apologize :-) --Matt
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> >>> <h**ttps://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/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
_______________________________________________ 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/
