|
Grex > Coop13 > #376: The problems with Grex, e-mail and spam | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 480 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 252 of 480:
| 
Dec 13 14:32 UTC 2006 |
Good points.
|
cross
|
|
response 253 of 480:
|
Dec 13 14:39 UTC 2006 |
Interesting ideas.
|
remmers
|
|
response 254 of 480:
|
Dec 13 18:01 UTC 2006 |
For the record, in case it wasn't clear - the opinions I expressed above
are strictly my own. I certainly wasn't speaking for the staff, or
relaying any opinions that I heard from anyone else. As I said, I
supported Mic's reinstatement and took the initiative to have an email
discussion with staff about that. I hope I'm not violating any
confidentiality protocols when I say that of the several staff who
responded, none were opposed. I started having misgivings when Mic
started posting with #171 and subsequent responses. I don't know if
other staff members' positions have changed or not.
Re #251: I certainly agree that "simple kindergarten skills of working
and playing well with others" are vitally important to the functioning
of a technical staff. But I honestly don't think that the problem is
that the staff "doesn't welcome newbies". Besides Dan Cross, several
new people were appointed to staff in the last three or four years (e.g.
Mike McNally), and although a couple of them left for personal reasons,
I never got a sense that the staff was dissatisfied with their work, or
that they were unhappy with how they were treated. Mic was hardly a
newbie, by the way - he was a staff member at least since 1999, a 7-year
veteran.
I can't speak for everybody, but I believe that the Grex staff would
welcome new folks with useful technical skills who can "play well with
others." Perhaps clearer lines of communication are needed for people
to express an interest in staff work.
|
cross
|
|
response 255 of 480:
|
Dec 13 18:11 UTC 2006 |
I think you need to define, ``play well with others.'' *My* impression was
that means, ``defer to Steve and/or Marcus in all but the most trivial
matters.''
|
nharmon
|
|
response 256 of 480:
|
Dec 13 19:38 UTC 2006 |
Nobody wants any help because we're not to the "admitting something is
wrong" phase yet. What will that take?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 257 of 480:
|
Dec 13 19:46 UTC 2006 |
Thanks remmers for a calm assessment.
My current sense is that staff, as a team, doesn't have a clear mechanism for
reaching agreement if 100% consensus isn't happening. While I'm a strong
believer in consensus-run teams, I have seen good ideas die because one strong
person refused to go along with everyone else. [Experience with HRP political
decision making]
What appears to be missing for staff is an agreed upon decision process, by
which decisions can be made if there is deeply divided staff opinion.
There doesn't seem to be a way to test competing ideas, or to evaluate
"success" after testing.
We might want to think about "writing the test first", an agile software
process that lets the user experience set criteria for a successful solution.
It's often faster to test two competing ideas than it is to get two entrenched
programmers to agree based on logical arguments with each other.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 258 of 480:
|
Dec 13 19:46 UTC 2006 |
256 slipped
|
slynne
|
|
response 259 of 480:
|
Dec 13 20:49 UTC 2006 |
cmcgee, it sounds like you have a lot to offer grex and it also sounds
like you are a person with a skill set that would be very useful in this
situation.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 260 of 480:
|
Dec 13 20:56 UTC 2006 |
In my opinion a conscensus form of decision is best when it is not very
important if a decision is made or not. When decisions are important, I prefer
a parliamentary system that allows the majority to rule with protections for
the views of the minority. I have functioned within both systems, but have
found that drift often results from conscensus systems.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 261 of 480:
|
Dec 13 21:47 UTC 2006 |
Respectfully, Rane, consensus works just fine when it's important to make a
decision. You and I have seen it work extremely well over the years here on
Grex.
There are varying definitions of consensus. What it means to a particular
decision making body has to be defined by that body, just as "majority" has
to be defined. (Please don't start the Robert's Rules conversation just yet).
Often a democratic majority is defined as agreement by >50% of the voters.
Often consensus is defined as agreement by 100% of the voters.
In each case, the decision rule is accepted BEFORE the question is discussed.
As far as I can see staff does not have a decision rule that defines
consensus, and does not have a decision rule that defines how action is taken
if the (fuzzily defined) consensus is not reached.
At this point, there is enough staff burnout that I doubt they can reach
either of those agreements (what is consensus, and what do we do if we can't
reach consensus) by doing what has worked in the past.
I'm suggesting that current staff explore (perhaps with me as a facilitator)
ways to define those two decision rules, using some form of consensus to do
so.
[I'm going to link this to coop since we've really gotten into Grex governence
issues is a big way.]
|
nharmon
|
|
response 262 of 480:
|
Dec 13 21:52 UTC 2006 |
The choices do not just include democratic majority and consensus. I
believe the most appropriate organizational structure for Grex staff is
a hierarchy with one person appointed by staff to be a Systems
Administrator, and that one person appointing staff, approving changes,
and removing staff when necessary. The BoD would decide overall policy
and dictate goals and vision. The staff would implement those plans
under the leadership of the Systems Administrator.
Where I work, the boss makes the decisions and he is responsible for
them (including all the way up to my company's BoD).
|
cross
|
|
response 263 of 480:
|
Dec 13 22:23 UTC 2006 |
(This item was already linked to coop, btw...)
|
krj
|
|
response 264 of 480:
|
Dec 13 22:37 UTC 2006 |
Yes, this item is now #376 *and* #384 in coop. :)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 265 of 480:
|
Dec 13 22:45 UTC 2006 |
Ok, killed 384 in coop. Thanks guys
|
cross
|
|
response 266 of 480:
|
Dec 13 22:49 UTC 2006 |
sure.
|
spooked
|
|
response 267 of 480:
|
Dec 13 22:50 UTC 2006 |
I was serious with my comments, and neither selfish nor immature in fact.
What is missed on the vast majority of those who think otherwise is that I
am a very talented individual - with great qualifications and industry
experience. I am trustworthy, and I have never had technical issues
working with any of the Grex staff. Moreover, I am volunteering my
services - any sane organisation would jump to have me doing so. On a
personal level, I have nothing against any of the staff. However, on a
political level, the runnings of Grex staff are less than satisfactory.
Because I speak the truth, and don't mess about with words or live purely
by (sometimes outdated) reputations and friendships I am perceived as
somewhat a wildflower -- but, hey, that's me and I will not be changing.
It has got me to where I am today, a position I am proud of - and, I have
the strength and talent to succeed and not play political games like some.
|
slynne
|
|
response 268 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:36 UTC 2006 |
and you're humble too! ;)
And fwiw, I am in the same boat. People seldom realize my true
greatness.
|
mary
|
|
response 269 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:38 UTC 2006 |
That's a generous offer you're making, Colleen, to jump in with
your expertise and maybe get this team functioning a little better.
Thank you so much.
You've given us an overview of the consensus and teambuilding goals
you'd like to facilitate, but I'm curious how you'd do this. Would
you be willing to tell us about the process so we could better
understand if this would work for Grex?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 270 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:38 UTC 2006 |
My question to you is: what have you done that makes other staff members look
good?
Nothing in your statement gives any information about your people skills.
In order to help build a new culture within staff, everyone on staff is going
to have to cultivate their people skills, and their ability to demonstrate
their EQ. "Not play political games" often translates into "not consider
other people's values when making decisions".
"I speak THE truth" is an impossible statement. "I speak MY truth clearly"
is possible. Strength and talent are not sufficient to make you a good
addition to a team. In fact, teams that work well together don't need strong
geniuses as members in order to be successful.
There is a book out, "The Wisdom of Crowds". Much of the research in that
book demonstrates that organizations that spend time and money searching for
the planet-level expert have worse outcomes than those which put a good team
on the problem.
My experience with over 175 engineering teams, selected from the University
of Michigan engineering school, confirms that "wildflowers" need to learn how
to value EVERYONE's contribution to the solution, not just their own. Hence
the question: What have you done that makes other team members look good?
Many engineers hold a belief system that they must be heros and work alone
to solve problems in order to be respected. Cred is not earned that way.
Another good book is "How To Be a Star Engineer" which is longitudinal
research done at Bell Labs. The people who were most respected as engineers
were not the Lone Rangers.
I'm hoping that the Grex staff can begin to incorporate some of this new
information into the way they solve problems.
|
mary
|
|
response 271 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:41 UTC 2006 |
It's impossible to realize your true greatness, Lynne. Give it up. ;-)
|
spooked
|
|
response 272 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:44 UTC 2006 |
Anyone who knows me professionally I am the first to admit I fuckup if I
make a mistake. I don't really give a shit if anyone thinks I'm stuck-up.
What matters to me is being transparent, fair, and hardworking.
It is clear that is staff has not accepted me, that I will take my
principles and services elsewhere.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 273 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:46 UTC 2006 |
Couple slips there while I was pontificating.
Mary, I'd be delighted to talk about how I could do that.
My first step would be to interview, via phone and email all the current
members of staff and board to find out privately what aspects of the problem
they thought were most pressing, and caused the most difficulty.
I would then assemble the information into an anonymous summary so that we
could all look at the same collection of data.
I would also try to find out preferred work styles and what aspects of working
with other techies worked best for each person, in order to discover common
ground.
I would do the same with any previous staff who would be willing to work with
me.
What the next step would be would depend heavily on the discoveries we all
made during this first round. I would love to have face-to-face meetings with
staff, but that may not be possible. Instead, I'd probably use some form of
emailed Delphi technique, and try to reach common ground that way.
Once we could all see where the mountains, hills, valleys, and deep pits were,
we would have a much better sense of what next steps were possible.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 274 of 480:
|
Dec 13 23:53 UTC 2006 |
Actually, I'd like to try some form of online staff meeting, using whiteboards
and Skype if we could. I've participated in a couple world-wide meetings like
that and found that the paid-for technology works extremely well. We'd have
to look for the freebie stuff, which I think may even be available via Yahoo.
|
tod
|
|
response 275 of 480:
|
Dec 14 01:32 UTC 2006 |
I can't speak for everybody, but I believe that the Grex staff would
welcome new folks with useful technical skills who can "play well with
others."
That reads like so many job postings I've seen by places that have a few
egomaniacs running critical systems and a manager or director who is afraid
of making any waves for fear those egomaniacs will cause a shitstorm or bring
the whole thing crashing down.
"Yea, we'd love for you to contribute to our lovely IT group but please don't
make any of the trolls under our data center bridge angry cuz we will always
pick them over you if it comes down to brass tacks."
Seriously.
I saw it at Ford, Real Networks, Microsoft, Chrysler Corp, Nordstrom, and a
bunch of other places. They all have a few weiners that aren't quite managers
but are micromanaging sysadmins whose entire sense of self worth is vested
in calling the shots of those few boxes they are responsible for.
How dare cross, spooked, or anybody suggest any code is updated, patched, or
changed to something better else they should be individually torn down and
seperated as "individuals" rather than "team players".
Good luck with your procmail hobby, Cindy..I don't think anybody on Grex staff
is going to see your skill as an asset for the entire userbase anytime soon.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 276 of 480:
|
Dec 14 02:26 UTC 2006 |
Notice that the criterion is "makes teammates look good". It is hard to have
your selfworth vested in calling all the shots when you're being evaluated
on that criterion.
Relentless refactoring of code is another aspect of agile programming that
would be useful on Grex.
|