On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Elaine Ashton <[email protected]> wrote: > I won't change the current values unless the owners or someone higher up the > foodchain asks me to.
The "excitement" was because of the grammatical tense that was used in the discussion: "We decided to" rather than "we would like to". The conversation should have been along the lines of "We've noticed <this problem> and would like to do something to fix it. We've thought about <solution>, which would take <time/effort estimate> by <list of people>. If this sounds like a good thing to do, we could try some initial experiments tomorrow - anyone want to be a guinea pig?" The perception out here in the community was that y'all had had that above conversation privately among yourselves, and had come to a conclusion without talking to the rest of us - in other words, a perceived lack of transparency in your decision making process. /This/ discussion, on the other hand, is happening in public, and one of the community leaders is trying to get things fixed so that he can better lead the communities he is contributing to. All you need to do is check the C&CC lists for those communities, find Garrett's name on them, and send mail to the existing list owners asking if they have any objections to adding Garrett as a moderator. Knowing Glynn Foster, Alan Duboff and Yunsong (Roamer) Lu, I can't think that they would have *any* problem adding Garrett to the ranks of email helpers. -John _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
