well said

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coleman, Tim [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 July 2001 09:08
> To:   Protel EDA Forum
> Subject:      Re: [PEDA] Divide and conquer: a lib. for everyone
> 
> 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