WOW!  What a melee!

"I am Pentium of Borg.  Division is futile.  You will be approximated."
(origin unknown)

Is this approximating a constructive process?  If so, it's off by several
orders of magnitude.

Seriously, I cast my vote (if I have one) for the following:
1)  website-hosted public-domain libraries
2)  no separate list for PCB footprint issues
3)  a validation process that does not preclude immediate availability of
non-validated footprints (caveat emptor)

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Open Topic Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Divdide and conquer: a lib. for everyone


> My apologies to list members, this is a long response to a long post. It
is
> not about Protel support, but about the user association and my
> relationship to it.
>
> At 02:24 AM 7/26/01 -0400, Andrew J Jenkins wrote:
>
> > >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...
>
> No. Apparently Mr Jenkins considers disagreement as to how to proceed to
be
> "looking for a fight." However, he raises certain issues and requests
> certain clarifications, and if he considers my responses to be fighting,
> it's a problem, certainly, but not a major one. We know and love Mr
> Jenkins, who can be very helpful; my only concern is that those who have
> not been on this list for a long time do not know him or his history and
> habits as well as the history of the association, and that, in this
> situation, this can cause damage.
>
> >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.
>
> No, it is not a private group. Anyone may join directly, using the method
> given. (email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Some users object
> to yahoogroups because of the cookies, etc., but if you join in that way,
> this is a non-issue. Yahoogroups lists no longer have appended
advertising.
> The new list was created with default settings, and it should be found
> under the index under Computers and Internet/Software/Specific Programs.
> However, there are about 1600 groups in that category. To find the list,
> search on yahoogroups for protel-users, and you will see all the
> protel-users mailing lists.
>
> Mr. Jenkins was probably confused by the delay in yahoogroups indexing, it
> seems to be about a day behind.
>
> Protel-users-library is now up to 22 subscribers. Still no traffic. It's
> fine with me if discussion proceeds here. When we are ready to sit down
and
> make decisions, the mailing list and its membership are there.
>
> > >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.
>
> I didn't invent it and I did not ask for it. I was nominated and, after
> waiting quite a time, a member proposed that I be considered elected by
> consensus. I don't recall how large the association list was at that time,
> but it was significant. It is now up to 67 members, and they include most
> major contributors to the Techserv list. At any time the association can
> remove me.
>
> This list (the Techserv list) calls itself the list of an Association, but
> if you read carefully, it is nothing other than a private list offered by
> Techserv and subject to the authority of Techserv. Techserv sets the
rules,
> and it does not ask anyone else. It's fine that Techserv offers this
> service, and we are all grateful for it. But an association, it is not.
> It's a mailing list, period.
>
> >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.
>
> No, the users call the shots. We have an association -- all licensed users
> are, by default, voting members if they choose to join -- and we may use
> the association lists if they so choose, or we may continue here
> informally. I started the library list merely to facilitate the process,
> I'm not going to be controlling how that list goes. The list may elect its
> own chair if it wishes, and that is my preference.
>
>  >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.
>
> Mr Jenkins has repeatedly termed an announcement by me of an association
> activity "repetitive and unsolicited." I consider association activity
> relevant here, and apparently a large number of users do likewise.
>
> As to "competing," there is only one Yahoo group which could be considered
> a "competitor" of this list, and that is the backup list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] That list has 173 subscribers at this time.
> That is public record. Now, how many subscribers does the Techserv list
have?
>
> To find out, you will have to ask Mark Koitmaa. I'd guess a thousand, but
> it could be substantially more or substantially less. The information is
> not made public on any routine basis. The only way I found out, at one
> time, was by asking what it cost to advertise to the list. Yes, Techserv
> has offered to sell our eyeballs. It was too expensive, and I think other
> advertisers concluded the same, since we have not seen any advertising.
>
> If we wished to compete, we would simply move to the protel-users list. We
> *don't* wish to compete, and we would only move to the protel-users list
if
> it became necessary. That list has been large enough for quite some time
to
> be able to provide a high level of user support. That serves as a backup
> for the times that the Techserv list is down, and it is also there if the
> Association and Mark ever decide to part ways. We aren't planning that.
>
> > >  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.
>
> I'd say that it represents quite a few more members than Mr. Jenkins. Not
> everyone wants to take the time to participate in association business.
> Most major writers for this list belong to the association.
>
> We have no authority over the user community at large. We exist to serve
> them, however, and they are welcome to join. Major association issues will
> always be announced here, people can join and vote if they want, or they
> can trust that we are acting in their interests.
>
> Every special interest association is like this. I'm a member of AARP, you
> become eligible at age 50. They represent the interests of older citizens
> before Congress, etc. Only a relatively small percentage of senior
citizens
> belong to AARP, but still, they *do* represent such citizens as a group.
>
> Since there is *no* other representative of the users, I'd say that we are
> it. So if you don't like what I say on behalf of the association, join and
> move that a motion of no-confidence in the chair be passed. If you get a
> second, I will rule that this motion will proceed to a vote without
debate.
> If the motion passes, I will proceed to open nominations for a new chair.
> Otherwise my term expires at the end of the year. November is the period
> for nominations, and the election is held in December.
>
>
>
> > >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.
>
> No, I should have written "from." I know that *some* users are
> unsubscribing from the Techserv list because the volume of mail is too
> large. We do not know the numbers because Techserv does not make that
> information available. Because the Protel user base is growing, there may
> still be a net growth on the Techserv list, but a loss in percentage.
>
> The yahoogroups lists have little traffic, so there are certainly no
> unsubscriptions for that reason; there are few unsubscriptions for *any*
> reason. Protel-users gains perhaps one or two members a day, the
> association perhaps one or two a week.
>
> >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.
>
> Printed circuit design is my business. Yes. And providing user services is
> part of that business. Techserv is in a similar business: we are, in fact,
> competitors, though I have done work for Techserv in the past. There are
> other service bureau proprietors on this list. It is *generally* a
> congenial community. Mr Jenkins is employed by the U.S. government,
> apparently he does not need to worry about matters like professional
> reputation or value rendered for fee paid. It's a different perspective.
>
> As to low traffic on the yahoogroups lists, they were designed that way.
> They are *accessory* lists. "Cell group mentality" exists in Mr Jenkin's
> mind, not in mine. The yahoogroups are useful, and they are free. Does Mr
> Jenkins think that we should not have an automatic archive for this list?
> We waited for a *long* time for Techserv to set one up.
>
> >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.
>
> Well, Techserv could ask. Mark, or his employee assigned to be
> administrator, are the only ones who know who is unsubscribing. I don't
> know why Mr Jenkins thinks I would know.
>
> >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.
>
> Mr. Jenkins is correct. The Forum is not an association at all, except in
> the loosest sense. I don't administer the Forum.
> And that is why I wrote that I could suggest that users move the library
> discussion to the library list, but it is only a suggestion. Mr Jenkins or
> anyone else is free to make suggestions, certainly I am as well.
>
> [...]
> >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.
>
> I took steps to move the Association from a fictitious "virtual"
> association, autocratically managed by a single owner, for better or for
> worse and to make it into a real, democratic, member-controlled
> organization. This is not the first time in my life I have done such a
> thing. In the past, I also encountered the same kind of paradoxical
> resistance, that is, by moving from an autocratic organization, de-facto
> controlled by a single individual or small committee, to one where the
> ultimate authority is the membership, complaints were made that I was
> "seeking power" or attempting to "divide and conquer."
>
> Mr Jenkins appears to have little concept of democratic process. When an
> association is organized, the initiator (or a representative of the
> initiators, if there are more than one) will typically gavel the initial
> meeting into session. There is no issue of quorum, because membership has
> not been defined. The first order of business, under Robert's Rules, is
the
> election of a chair, and that is what was done. A long time was allowed to
> elapse before a member moved that the election be completed, and the
> existence of the association was repeated announced. There were no other
> nominations.
>
> Absolutely, I have no special authority on the Techserv list. But I can
> also, within limits, speak for the Protel Users Association. If Mr Jenkins
> doesn't like that, he is free to take steps to attempt to change it. It is
> my duty as chair, in fact, to let him know how to proceed, if he does not
> already know.
>
> The only environment "more democratic" -- to use Mr Jenkin's phrase --
than
> the Protel Users Association is anarchy, if anarchy can be called
> democratic. Every move I make as chair is subject to review by the
> Association. If the Association does not like what I'm writing today, it
> can tell me to shut up, or to make clear that I am writing only as an
> individual, not as representative of the Association.
>
> >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.
>
> Mr. Jenkins has repeatedly stated that he did not want multiple lists,
that
> he did not want to fragment the list, and he has repeatedly asserted that
> the yahoogroups lists were "fragmentation." If the Open Forum is not
> "fragmentation," why are the yahoogroups lists "fragmentation?" The Open
> Forum, in particular, was a direct duplication of an already-existing
list,
> with no other reason for existence.
>
> >  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.
>
> Techserv, essentially, does what it pleases. Mark does not consult the
list
> membership, I can't think of a single example. More than once users have
> organized to present suggestions to Techserv, and they have been blown
off.
> If Mr Jenkins is so exercised about alleged authoritarian assumption of
> power, why is he so willing to accept it from Techserv? That's a real
> question, I truly do not know the answer.
>
>
> >  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.
>
> Since I did not speak with authority over this list, I did not need to ask
> for it. I have not assumed authority over this list, nor over its members,
> and I clearly noted that my suggestion to move discussion elsewhere was
> just that, a suggestion. Users are free to discuss whatever they want on
> this list, until and unless Techserv intervenes. When they intervene, as
> they have intervened in the past, we have never seen from Mr Jenkins any
> complaint about their presumption of authority.
>
> Nor should there be any complaint. Techserv owns this list, we don't. That
> is the major difference between the Techserv list and the yahoogroups
list.
> The Yahoogroups lists are owned legally by the Association. I'm registered
> with yahoogroups as the owner simply because the Association is not a
> formal legal entity, but I have an agreement with the Association to turn
> over ownership whenever the Association wishes me to do so. I reserved
only
> one list, protel-users-resale, but I would turn that over as well if I had
> assurances that it would continue to be a place where people who want to
> sell their software can find buyers. There is no other place which works
as
> well.
>
> >  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.
>
> When the library committee elects a chair, I will, on request, turn over
> the ownership of the list to the chair of the committee. Yes, I have
> assumed power, but I have assumed it as a trustee, and specifically as a
> trustee who serves subject to the will of the beneficiaries. One might
> think about what that means.
>
> No one has disputed that the discussion is on-topic for this forum. I
> merely suggested that when users were ready to *do* something instead of
> just talking about it, the library list is available.
>
> >  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.
>
> My technical expertise is not nearly as important to me as my character
and
> professional reputation. That, in fact, is why I began to broker Protel
> resales. I had the reputation, and since I have a reputation to protect, I
> am more likely to be trusted by buyers and sellers. Mr Jenkins is tilting
> at windmills.
>
> >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.
>
> Since what I have written is clearly relevant to any putative Association
> of Protel EDA Users, I'd rather leave it here, should Mr Jenkins prefer to
> pursue the matter. But he is certainly welcome to take his own advice.
Yes,
> I am a subscriber to all Protel-related lists, so I'd see his response or
> any other posts there. That does not mean that I would necessarily take
the
> time to respond, this particular post is already more of a burden than I
> would have cared to take on at this point in time; I've got a truck to
load.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Abdulrahman Lomax
> P.O. Box 690
> El Verano, CA 95433
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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