Tamblyne, I looked at this earlier and decided not to bother with a
reply, but it has been nagging at me, so I think I owe the necessary
clarifications:
In a message dated 2009.11.06 02:40 -0500, Tamblyne wrote:
Moderators (and the list owner) are closer to the list management
than are the volunteers who work so tirelessly to make this list
go, and whose time is so routinely wasted by list malfunction. If
one is in a better position to effect change, one should use that
position. You don't have to "manage CollabNet" to make better use
of ezmlm - even if you do need to work with CollabNet to get
changes made.
... moderators moderate. That's it. They keep the spam out. They
aren't in any better position to effect change than you are.
Strange that you draw that conclusion without disputing the premise:
"Moderators (and the list owner) are closer to the list management than
are the volunteers who work so tirelessly to make this list go, and
whose time is so routinely wasted by list malfunction." Being closer to
the list management (even if they do not do it) gives a larger
responsibility for using that proximity to address list management
problems than for people who do not have that proximity (but still try
to do something).
Kudos, though, to Paul for trying. I notice he got at least one
"slamming" after "outing" himself. Might be why the moderators tend
not to do that.
I hope you don't think that my question to him - when he confessed to
just watching the seemingly endless discussions about how to fix the
list, because he was tired of them - was "slamming". His comment was an
acknowledgment that he knows there are problems but was not particularly
moved to do something about them. Maybe I'm a tough grader, but that
does not strike me as "trying", and I say that without the slightest
malice; it's simply a statement of fact.
I think you're confusing "knowing" with the ability to do something
about it. ... I'm sure Paul has better things to do than to constantly
tell people "yeah, it's broke, but we can't fix it."
Actually, considering how much time this costs the list, I doubt that
any moderator has /better/ things to do than to inform the list of the
status of list management problems (insofar as he knows) and to use his
proximity to list management to advocate improvements. But again, you
did not address the premise: What I said was not a "slam". [IF you (or
any moderators whom you believe are too shy to go public) think of a
civil question as a "slam", Kipling has a poem for you.]
Paul did instruct me to check the archives to learn /why/ he was
not moved to do anything, but that turned out to be just another
waste of time, and he did not respond to my reply on that point.
Both ends of that strike me as a lack of courtesy, a lack of effort
(a contrast to the amazing effort you routinely see from some of
the list volunteers) - but I say that, again, without malice; it's
simply a statement of fact, and I sadly wish it were otherwise. No
"slamming" involved.
IIRC, you made quite a point of the fact that he had wasted your time.
Let's see... in response to Paul saying,
Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not
bore everyone else.
I said, "It would have been considerate to be a little more directed." -
and then, after describing the fruitless search, "So, now that you have
wasted my time with a vague reference ... would you care to make your
reference a bit more specific?" Since that those two sentences [which
seem to me limited and mild] were in response to a suggestion which was
not only churlish and vague, but led nowhere, do you find them
disproportionate ("quite a point")?
I'm not Paul, but I wouldn't have responded to you, either. He said
what he had to say. Why continue the discussion with nothing new to
add?
Maybe to:
(a) Respond to my request to be more specific?
(b) If he were so inclined, apologize. [FWIW, I do, when I have wasted
someone's time or inadvertently given offense.]
It doesn't help that you were, again IIRC, using "moderators". ... I
took a gamble and did a search for "CollabNet" ...
Close; actually I used the string "moderator". Since "moderators" was
Paul's suggestion [see above], why should I have used a different search
term? In particular, how would I have gotten "CollabNet" from Paul's
suggestion?
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
