Time out Gentlemen Please!!

I understand your passion but may I remind you that the purpose of this
forum is NOT to engage in personal attacks. It is most unprofessional and
unpleasant to witness. Its the sort of think that causes people to
unsubscribe from the forum, taking with them their experience and advice,
much to our loss.

Looking objectively at the question of a separate list or not to develop the
common library,  it can be seen that both options have merit. 

On the one hand Awareness of the existence of a 'Common Protel Library
development forum' is important so that as many people who want to be
involved can do so. This awareness can best be achieved by using the
existing forum at least for the time being.

On the hand there is a risk that with so many people involved we will not
reach a consensus and the project will grind to a halt. A select committee
to make decisions on the standards etc may be the best way forward. The work
of developing the library will need coordinating to reduce duplication as
much as possible.

I would suggest that the discussion remain on this list until sufficient
folk have signed up to be involved as to enable the work to progress on the
new list, wherever that may be ( A web page looks like a good idea to me).

Personally I'm sure I'm not qualified to help on the work or advice on the
standards but I see the need and am happy to back those more able to do the
job but I would be interested to follow the development (part of my on-going
education).

May Wisdom and sound thinking prevail.

Regards

TC



>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         "Andrew J Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:25 AM
> To:   Protel EDA Forum
> Cc:   Open Topic Forum
> Subject:      Re: [PEDA] Divdide and conquer: a lib. for everyone
> 
> On 05:06 PM 7/25/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> >At 02:07 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Andrew J Jenkins wrote:
> >>The problem, as I see it, with traffic in multiple locations is that
> it's end result is fragmentation of the group and
> >
> >Meeting in committee is hardly "fragmentation." The records of the
> committee are open to the public and will remain so, and anyone who wishes
> to join the discussion may do so. Further, the committee will report back
> to this list and anyone who does not like its recommendations will be free
> to express it.
> ...
> 
> I was not looking for a fight, but as usual, that's what you seem to
> want...
> 
> Your new list is not open, it is unlisted within Yahoo groups, whcih, as I
> now know, is not a default condition. Therefore, it is in fact a private
> group, and it was purposely created to be such.
> 
> >I don't know that Mr. Jenkins is aware that I was elected chair of the
> Protel Users Association.
> 
> I am perfectly aware that you have such a title.
> 
> Further, I didn't see anything in Ted's original suggestion (note that I
> said Ted, not you) that indicated that your association would be calling
> the shots. If it is, well...then so be it.
> 
> >I am the "owner" of record for the Protel-users yahoogroups lists,
> 
> We are all painfully aware of the fact, as you continually remind us all,
> by your repetitive and unsolicited advertisement for your competing Yahoo
> groups.
> 
> >  but I only hold those lists as trustee for the association; my
> decisions regarding them are subject to association review, and not only
> can I be overruled by the association, I *have* been overruled in one
> case.
> 
> Your association in no way represents the Protel EDA user community at
> large, as evidenced by the number of members in comparison to even a
> simpleton's estimate of the number of installed Protel seats.
> 
> 
> >Every organization which has accomplished something significant has
> learned to divide and delegate responsibility. Not everyone wants to
> participate in every activity, and we are already bleeding subscribers to
> the Techserv list,
> 
> "To", or "from", Mr Lomax?  Your vernacular confuses me by it's ambiguity.
> If "we" are bleeding members TO the Techserv list, then the Yahoo groups
> are losing members to the Techserv list. That, in my eyes, is just fine.
> 
> >  people who unsubscribe simply because the volume of mail becomes too
> much. I spoke to a number of these at the last PC Design Conference West.
> >
> >(There is a list, protel-u...
> 
> <deletion of another unsolicited advertisement for a competing list>
> 
> They are ALL very low traffic lists, IMO in part because of the
> constricting nature of the cell group mentality which they exemplify.
> Everything you've attempted could be accomplished with one or two groups
> in addition to the Techserv sponsored group at most, no more. and their
> required purpose? archive, files, polls... Yet, every few months, here
> comes another Mr Lomax group. You yourself have indicated a mercantile
> bent to your efforts, and it causes me concern.
> 
> And wrt to these people who've left ??? group, these folks surely didn't
> voice their concerns regarding the numbers of messages to this group, so
> how is anyone to know, aside from you, of course.
> 
> >  and I recommend
> 
> Yet another unsolicited advertisement deleted.
> 
> 
> >I know that some of us, even some of those who have been active in
> association affairs (such as Mr. Wilson, who has done a great deal and who
> deserves our gratitude), dislike the proliferation of lists. Some
> organizations similar to ours have a single list, but have required
> subject headers, and people can set their subscription preferences to
> include or exclude particular subjects. That's another way of
> accomplishing a similar purpose.
> 
> Most of us are not operating on a 28K modem anymore. And I was downloading
> listgroup traffic over ten years ago, using a 2400 baud modem, in which
> lists with much greater daily traffic than this group were not terribly
> taxing on my comm system. A simple mail filter can easily kill a topic by
> automatic deposition into the trash can, if that is the reader's intent.
> 
> >However, requiring that all users receive all mail is the same kind of
> error as was made by many cooperative organizations back in the seventies:
> everything was decided by the entire organization.
> 
> The Techserv Protel EDA forum is not your association, nor are the ideas
> generated within. If you want to administer, then have the courtesy to
> ask, and abide by the answer, whether in your favor or against it.. Do not
> presume that you are entitled to leadership within this group before doing
> so.
> 
> >  Problem was, it was very difficult to get everyone to agree, and a
> single argumentative person could effectively prevent anything from being
> done. In the end, the organizations went according to the decisions of
> those who could afford the time to sit through long-winded plenary
> sessions. And, usually, after a few years, the organization was gone.
> >
> >I'd prefer to have an opt-out system, where everyone was subscribed to
> all the lists, and then could opt out of the ones not of interest to them.
> If Mr Jenkins had his way, it would seem, *we couldn't opt out.* Is this
> really what we want?
> 
> Please, opt out if that's what you want. I for one, do not want to do so.
> Just don't assume that when someone suggests a course of action within
> THIS group, that you have the apriori authority to administer that idea.
> There are 63 current members of the group you purport to lead, but this
> group is one in which you are ONLY equal with every other subscriber, not
> the defacto leader, regardless of your appointment as chair for an
> association which includes only SOME of the members of THIS group. I do
> not suppose to speak for Ted, as he, and he alone is the originator of the
> thread which has, unfortunately, spawned both your call for yet more
> splintering of the group and this subsequent sub-thread, but I do speak in
> a more general manner. You didn't even ask, in-the-open, within this
> forum, for permission to take on such a role wrt this suggested endeavor,
> you simply attempted to usurp the matter. And as a member of THIS group, I
> object to such a stance on your part. At the onset of the subject, I was
> an equal participant. As soon as you decided it was something you wanted
> to administer, I became an unwilling subject to your association. I prefer
> a more democratic environment. When talking about Protel users, 63 doesn't
> make a quorum in my mind, nor does 1 or 2, wrt what you consider to be the
> "vote" for chair.
> 
> And, in contrary to your erroneous allegation, I too, would have preferred
> for Techserv to auto-subscribe it's membership to the OT group, in order
> to alleviate some of the traffic (like this particular and unnecessary
> sub-thread) from the main group and reroute it into a more appropriate
> forum which all but those who CHOSE to unsubscribe would receive. However,
> that obviously wasn't the case. But, then again, the subscriber-ship
> didn't make much of an effort towards convincing Techserv that it wanted
> that end, (in fact, I believe that at the time, there were fewer of us who
> supported such a move than those who thought everything should stay in
> this group arguing instead that this group was sufficient by itself).
> Therefore, (IMO) Techserv opted for an "opt-in" subscription method for
> the OT group.
> 
> Finally, I do not object to administration of an undertaking such as that
> authored by Ted Tontis or the concept of division of labor, nor do I
> object to the use of alternate sites which allow for augmentation of the
> Protel EDA Forum group's capability, rather, I object to those who presume
> that they have authority to redirect the flow of discussion away from an
> established forum without first ASKING for such authority from those which
> they presume to take it. Your attempt to move the discussion, authored
> within this group, an unmistakably Protel-related thread, and therefore
> quite ON-topic for this forum, one that was doing just fine without any
> unsolicited assistance from Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, Inc, to yet another forum
> which you control, is a prime example. You forget that while you may be
> the chair of an association, you are not in fact the leader for anyone
> outside that organization. Had you instead simply announced creation of a
> group for file storage and polling, non-one would ever have replied
> in-contrary on the subject, including myself. I do not enjoy having to
> address these issues, and in fact, I find it quite distasteful to be
> forced to battle someone who I otherwise respect for his technical
> expertise.
> 
> As for any further replies on your part wrt this rationalization towards
> of yours, please route them to the OT group or by direct mail. If you're
> not subscribed to the OT list, you can do so by visiting the Techserv site
> at the following address
> http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/join.html, and select the Open
> Topic forum.
> 
> regards,
> 
> aj
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To leave this list visit:
> * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
> *                      - or email -
> * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?bodyleave%20proteledaforum
> *
> * Contact the list manager:
> * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * Browse or Search previous postings:
> * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to