Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
That's certainly one interpretation. For me, the responsibility comes
with the position by default.
...
What responsibilities do I have to my elected officials?
This might be getting to the heart of why we see the responsibilities
differently. The committers are not elected officials. They represent
only themselves, and sometimes their companies. Therefore the only
responsibility they have is to themselves. That doesn't mean they don't
care about what other people want or think, just that they are not bound
by any duty other than their own personal code of ethics.
Let me try another analogy. Let's say you go down to volunteer at a
homeless shelter. You serve a few meals and wipe a few tables a couple
of times a month. Do you become bound by any responsibility other than
to show up and help? Do you become responsible for solving the homeless
problem? Should you feel obligated to give someone a bed? Some people
may feel they do have such a responsibility. Others won't. It's not my
place to criticize a volunteer for not taking on those additional
responsibilities. I am just grateful that you've just done a little bit
to help out.
As for your response to my last question, I very much agree with you. I
do not believe blind allegiance is *ever* a good thing. I question
everything. I can be a real pain, believe me. But at some point you have
to accept that your way might not be accepted by others. They key thing
you said is respect. You have to give respect to earn it. The thing that
pisses me off most on this list (and I'm certainly not talking about you
here BTW) is people who have done nothing of value but who make personal
attacks on others who have contributed a lot of time and effort to help
them. Those people shouldn't be surprised that they don't get listened
to. You know who you are.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
