On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Michael Tiernan <michael.tier...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 5/16/14 12:13 AM, Matt Disney wrote: > > The simple fact that LOPSA continues to sustain itself is a collective > > statement that people in our industry want to work together, that > > we're eager to make our industry stronger, that we want advance the > > profession, and that we believe we can do all those things. > I *personally* feel that this is not a well crafted statement. The fact > that LOPSA continues very well could be that it is too [insert negative > adjective describing cognitive ability] to lie down and die. (Not that I > hope for this.) > > I do hope that your observation *is* true and we can make this thrive > better. > Fair enough. But let's be clear about this: My statement was not one about why LOPSA should/shouldn't exist. It was about how its very existence is a form of advocacy (albeit limited) for system administrators. > > I suggest we establish a procedure for developing: > > > > 1. Quick position statements on public policy [...] > > > > 2. Technical briefs of things for the IT community, [...] > > > > 3. Position papers on technologies or methodologies [...] > I agree with all three items. I suspect it would be hard to not agree > with them. > > While reading these points, in the background I have the news on and it > seems serendipitous that these three things would/could/should be > applied to the current issue of the FCC's vote on what has been called > "Net Neutrality". > > There's a lot of *crap* surrounding it and this might be an ideal topic > to use, even if it is only internally for the moment, as a springboard > for developing these skills. > > Sure. > One of the things that this *may* offer us is the chance to see how the > membership can/cannot respond to such things when they're employed by an > affected target of the topic. > > It might also be a good chance for a point/counterpoint type of > discussion, hey, maybe make it public, where two people can debate the > *technical* aspects of both sides of the issue? > Yup, I'd love to see that. It's at least worth a shot. But it depends on having people responsible (and hopefully excited) about doing this sort of work. Which was the point of my outline for how we can execute generating these three different types of content. The Board is not the right body to do those things, so we have to figure out a way to make them happen; I think that means giving someone that believes in those tasks the ownership and latitude to go make something happen. In other words, I think that job needs a specific owner in order to be done well. And we do have the opportunity to address network neutrality so I'll see if we can do something there and at least evolve the process for developing LOPSA position statements in the right direction. > The ideas were well-received but the Board essentially voted for our > > top priorities > Not directed at you Matt but at the general populous. What *are* those > top priorities? It should not be left as an exercise for the reader to > guess. :) > Ah, I see the minutes from the 2013 Board face-to-face meeting (where we decided on annual priorities) aren't on the governance site. I didn't realize that. At or before the Board meeting tonight, I'll bring this up and see if we can get those posted in at least the normal governance.lopsa.org way. We ought to post the highlights on the lopsa.orgmain site, too. Thanks for being engaged about this stuff. - Matt Disney
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
