|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 25 of 106:
| 
Jan 24 00:54 UTC 1997 |
Re: 21: Ladymoon, I don't think this item is for choosing who is going to
be appointed, or even who is going to be considered. I suspect that was
covered at the board meating yesterday. Anyone who responded will be (was?)
seriously considered.
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 106:
|
Jan 24 06:09 UTC 1997 |
Board says staff should make a recommendation. So staff will make a
recommendation at their next meeting (about three weeks from now) and the
board will vote on it (in another week after that).
|
davel
|
|
response 27 of 106:
|
Jan 24 12:17 UTC 1997 |
Ah, the game of Bureaucracy ... any number can play.
|
snafu
|
|
response 28 of 106:
|
Jan 26 23:10 UTC 1997 |
Hmm... Does someone being considered have to be at the meeting? Or can we
remain absentee? Cause I'd like to do this, but have no way to get to the
meeting...
|
kaplan
|
|
response 29 of 106:
|
Jan 27 03:11 UTC 1997 |
Staff meetings are closed. Staff members will talk about you behind your back
and come to a conclusion and make a recommendation at the next board meeting.
It's the board that actually appoints staff members. Board meetings are open
to the public.
|
valerie
|
|
response 30 of 106:
|
Jan 27 07:53 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 31 of 106:
|
Jan 27 08:44 UTC 1997 |
....just in cyberspace <g>.
|
tsty
|
|
response 32 of 106:
|
Jan 27 08:45 UTC 1997 |
... just show up in cyberspace.or<g>.
|
tsty
|
|
response 33 of 106:
|
Jan 27 09:06 UTC 1997 |
hmmm, i got a couple of those mkids too small messages ... and thouhght
the response failed. come back, (got same mkids too small) and saw two
responses ...wonder it this one will "take?"
|
russ
|
|
response 34 of 106:
|
Jan 27 19:10 UTC 1997 |
If you're really running short of candidates, you can volunteer me.
|
valerie
|
|
response 35 of 106:
|
Jan 28 14:10 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 36 of 106:
|
Jan 28 16:39 UTC 1997 |
What I'm saying is that I can do the cfadm-type work (heck, I kibitzed
with Dave Thaler on the PicoSpan file formats for the YAPP design work),
but my time may well be limited and the politics unfavorable. Up to you.
|
omni
|
|
response 37 of 106:
|
Jan 28 19:34 UTC 1997 |
I would like to add that I would consider this a great learning opportunity,
and one that might not present itself for some time to come.
|
tsty
|
|
response 38 of 106:
|
Jan 30 06:55 UTC 1997 |
any reliance on favorable/unfavorable politics doesn't seem apropos
except outside of grex i would think.
|
valerie
|
|
response 39 of 106:
|
Jan 31 15:14 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 40 of 106:
|
Jan 31 16:41 UTC 1997 |
Guess it's not a factor, then.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 106:
|
Jan 31 18:30 UTC 1997 |
#39...Valerie is not being truthful with you Russ. If she gets her way
with item #2 in the unregistered reading proposal, the Cfadmin will be
in the position of monitoring *all* the fair witnesses of all the confs
to make sure noone is linking items from closed confs. And if they are,
you have to immediately rescind their fw abilities and catch hell from
them *and* likely from members of that conf, whose conference setup you
would be interfering with. Valerie wants the staff, and therefore
logically the cfadmin, to act as governors, to interfere with
conferences and enforce political mandates.
|
omni
|
|
response 42 of 106:
|
Jan 31 19:50 UTC 1997 |
I think you're wrong, Richard. I have known Valerie a lot longer than you
have and I have never known her to harbor an ulterior motive.
IF a fw makes a mistake, the appropriate action would be to correct the
mistake and then educate the offender. I think that would be what Valerie
would do.
I would hope that the fw would already know that you don't link from
closed confs in the first place. I think you owe Valerie an apology.
|
dpc
|
|
response 43 of 106:
|
Jan 31 21:32 UTC 1997 |
Well, omni, disregarding Richard's innuendoes, it *is* true that
under #2 of Valerie's proposed policy, the staff (logically cfadm)
would have a policing role including removal of fair witness status.
This policy change *will* make cfadm "political" in the sense
of "exercising power". Another good reason to vote against the
policy.
|
dang
|
|
response 44 of 106:
|
Jan 31 22:25 UTC 1997 |
I recall she said "staff." Cfadm need not be staff.
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 106:
|
Jan 31 23:27 UTC 1997 |
Omni, I am not making any personal attacks. It is not what Valerie would do
(Im sure she'd try to be nice about it) but what the precedent sets
in...mandating staf acting as police for the conferences. How many times have
I heard that staf are supposed to have nothing to do with conferences, that
staff are volunteers to maintain the hardware. I think her proposal
redefines what staff responsibilities are and sets a bad p[recedent.
The proposal itself isnt worth this kind of bureacracy.
|
russ
|
|
response 46 of 106:
|
Feb 1 01:27 UTC 1997 |
Detecting links out of closed confs should be doable via scripts.
It shouldn't need very much human intervention until then. If
the policy is decided elsewhere and cfadm is only executing it, I
don't see what the political issue is; policement aren't policymakers.
|
snafu
|
|
response 47 of 106:
|
Feb 1 01:41 UTC 1997 |
Very true...
|
russ
|
|
response 48 of 106:
|
Feb 1 02:37 UTC 1997 |
However, I'd need to see a list of these policy items relevant to
the cfadm role before I even think of being "conference cop". Are
they written anywhere?
|
omni
|
|
response 49 of 106:
|
Feb 1 04:34 UTC 1997 |
I beg to differ, dang. Cfadm should be staff if he/she would have access
to all conferences. If cfadm need not be staff, then why does staff have to
recommend to the board who to appoint? Shouldn't this be a board only
decision?
So are we going to go the route of "make a mistake and resign"? or
or are we more inclined to educate, then if it happens again remove the f-w?
I am more inclined to use the least amount of muscle because good f-w's
are really hard to find.
|
