|
771. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:34:07 AM Alistair, Wabbit, JJ, Jay? There's a complaint on the table.
Apparently, Angel and Seguine feel that we didn't sufficiently consult everyone, that we should have emailed all members signed up at that time to get their feedback. We should have then had a vote, apparently. You'll have to check with them about what we should have done if a quorum hadn't been heard from.
But nonetheless, they have complained. They feel that we were a trifle high-handed (well, they think that I was extremely high-handed; I believe your sin was omission or inertia) and that the voice of the people has been ignored.
Anxious as they are to only leave this criticism on my shoulders, I feel their complaint about member notification and consultation should weigh equally on all of us. So could you please answer their complaint? As everyone repeatedly points out, I have no authority on this forum, so I feel unqualified to answer for those who do.
Thanks in advance. 772. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:34:39 AM You're the only one making it about you, and you're probably just doing it out of habit. I doubt anyone else mistakes that. I'm not complaining to you. You're the one who jumps in whenever a complaint is made and makes it your own personal business. You issue a rebuttal and then when someone responds, this happens. It's ridiculous. What I'm making it about is, instead, your claim that it was all done in plain sight of anyone and no one disagreed, and how that's a bit disingenuous of a claim. That is it. 773. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:37:23 AM Can we just lose the psychodrama and the melodrama and just discuss the policies? Could we do that, please? Wouldn't that be much nicer than twisting what's been done and said around until it points squarely at you, CalGal, and no other? 774. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:39:04 AM Angel,
That's such horseshit. 775. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:40:51 AM Fine, Angel. It's not about me. Good.
Then the question is on the table. The folks in whom you place such confidence have been asked why there was no vote. Hopefully, their answer will reassure you. 776. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:42:41 AM It's not horseshit at all.
Who exactly asked for a vote? 777. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:44:17 AM Well? 778. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:44:21 AM Well? 779. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:44:21 AM Well? 780. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:45:04 AM I don't know how that happened. The triple wasn't intentional. 781. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:52:03 AM Wabs: Please delete 778-780 and this post. Sorry to have made the mess. 782. SpenceMirrlees - 2/21/2000 6:54:42 AM Team,
The procedure for deciding on procedures for deciding on the rules was discussed here. Openly, for all to participate. Not exactly a secret. If you don't like how it came down you have no one to blame but yourself.
I am baffled by the claim that CalGal purports to have special authority, more authority than she has, etc. Especially about the RoE. Indeed my impression at the time was that she went out of her way to get other people involved in that project. As I recall it was something of a project to coordinate volunteer efforts, coordination she was involved in. It probably would have taken less effort to bag that and just write the RoE. 783. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:55:12 AM Seguine said there should have been a vote. Also, you said that all members should have been notified and consulted. When I said they were told of this place and encouraged to come here, you scoffed.
You said, "In a register-only subthread where most of the previous action consisted of a horrendously big argument? Where there were doubts raised that were ignored, and where only a very small percentage of the Mote responded at all? Please." and then point out how "simple" it would be to put together an email.
That was a complaint, Angel. And given that Wabbit, Alistair, Jay, and JJ all participated in that register only subthread and concurred in the methodology, it became a complaint to them.
So don't direct it at me. All I did was write the RoE. I didn't put them into production--Alistair did. He did so after Wabbit blessed them. They all did that because they thought the method we used was appropriate.
You don't like it? Fine. The people you just loudly proclaimed your faith in are the people who participated in that decision. So I just asked them to respond to your complaint.
But don't sit there and direct your complaints at me, all the while kissing their ass, and think that's going to fly. You are complaining about them, Angel. It was their decision you didn't like. Not mine. I have no authority around here, as you hasten to point out. So make your complaints to the people who have it. 784. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:02:32 AM Who is saying that CalGal currently claims real power? Cazart? A few people were involved with writing the preliminary RoE. Harper couldn't, Pelle couldn't, ChristinO did. The RoE were then rewritten, by CalGal. Some people might think that they were drafted in a corrupt manner. I do not. I just think that all the talk of them now -- and, remember, at first it was 'everyone agreed on the RoE' and then it became 'almost everyone agreed on the RoE' and now it's 'well, anyone who wanted to talk about the RoE could have registered for the Mote Policies thread and discussed them' -- can suffer a little correction. Obviously, as has been proven the last few days. Cut and dried. That is it. I personally do not like the RoE, as I've made perfectly clear several times. This discussion has little to do with that, however. 785. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:09:57 AM CalGal: Once again, YOU are the one who made the complaint about YOU. Not I. Go back and read the posts made today. I have. I will once again bet you twelve days of my silence in this forum against twelve days of yours that you can't go back and show anyone where I made this a complaint about you. I invite anyone to do the same. You would transfer my criticism of your statements into a criticism of you personally, and then a criticism of the Mote staff personally. That is pure unadulterated fantasy on your part. Go back and read, instead of acting wounded and abused. At least one of us is trying to keep this about the issue and not about you. 786. CalGal - 2/21/2000 7:16:27 AM I'm not wounded and abused, I'm fed up with this bullshit. Yes, Seguine is most certainly accusing me, yes, she is certainly saying that I have pretended to power. You have tacitly agreed with some of her comments and in other cases you have criticized a response that I've made as if it were my decision.
If I have misunderstood your posts, terrific. I'm glad you're not making it about me. I still think the questions you raise are best answered by someone who has authority, since you and Seguine both feel that the membership wasn't sufficiently consulted.
787. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:30:20 AM I'm not wounded and abused, I'm fed up with this
bullshit. Yes, Seguine is most certainly accusing me, yes,
she is certainly saying that I have pretended to power.
You have tacitly agreed with some of her comments and
in other cases you have criticized a response that I've
made as if it were my decision. Which of her comments concerning you have I tacitly agreed with? Which of your responses have I criticized as though I were criticizing your judgment at the time and not your immediate logic? I'm waiting. After all, everything you've just said hinges on some kind of connection between the above and a criticism of you as a perceived instrument of Mote policy. If I have misunderstood your posts, terrific. I'm glad
you're not making it about me. I still think the questions
you raise are best answered by someone who has
authority, since you and Seguine both feel that the
membership wasn't sufficiently consulted. CalGal: My questions were to you, and they centered on your own statements. Please try to understand that, because I think it's key. They weren't about you personally, they weren't about decisions you made, they weren't about Alistair or Wabbit or Irv or JJ or Jay or Indiana or anyone else at the helm. They were about your arguments concerning the RoE discussion. You jumped in and tried fielding statements, your answers were questioned, and then suddenly this discussion between us is all about CalGal yet again. Please understand that I am not the one who did that. 788. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:33:07 AM Oh, yes, and feel free to 'splain to the recipients of that little open letter you just drafted that it was your mistake. I don't doubt that they'll understand that after wading through this but some formal acknowledgement that you may have been in error would be very pleasing to me. 789. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 7:41:48 AM Angel,
So you didn't agree with Seguine's statements you just wanted to let me know you believed I had misunderstoood her? 790. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:53:42 AM I believed that you had misinterpreted Seguine's statement rather nastily. I'm sorry if you took that as wholehearted endorsement of what she said. Remember, I was around for this the first time; I know how things happened. I do think that some people's concerns were very prominent in the RoE and others' weren't, though I don't attribute that to a conspiracy or a cabal so much as a response to lengthy advocacy by a few people. I also think that CalGal worded things to best please herself first and others second. That isn't really any agreement with Seguine.
I do agree with something else Seguine stated about CalGal's manner at the time, but this isn't the place to get into that and if you want to discuss it further tell me to meet you at the Inferno. And in any case that has nothing to do with the implementation of the RoE or her subsequent complaints that I was persecuting her unfairly.
|
