|
Grex > Oldcoop > #370: Nominations for the 2007 Grex Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 236 responses total. |
spooked
|
|
response 174 of 236:
| 
Dec 30 04:20 UTC 2006 |
Oh, I was not complaining, for the record. I was stating things as I and
others I know saw them. I also tried not to get personal. In fact, it
can be shown that I did not (initiate) attack (on) remmers personally.
On the contrary, he was rather stabbing of my efforts to contribute
technically, and even more so in the fact I unselfishly was determined to
highlight the political quadmire that Grex has got itself into. What
pissed me much more though, was his completely unreasonable appraisal of Dan.
Hopefully the dynamic duo will be reading this (though, I doubt that
very much - unless, of course, they have been tipped off) and have some
decency in stepping down.
|
tsty
|
|
response 175 of 236:
|
Dec 30 06:24 UTC 2006 |
ouch - thankxx remmers for all the help over all those years.
i'm sad to see you resign. be good or have fun.
|
naftee
|
|
response 176 of 236:
|
Dec 30 06:50 UTC 2006 |
thanks remmers !
be sure to keep entering crazy items on m-net with those subliminal messages
dealing with your resignation
or something
|
nharmon
|
|
response 177 of 236:
|
Dec 30 12:41 UTC 2006 |
LOL! I find it funny that Sindi of all people would start the pointing
fingers "he resigned because you complained too much" given her
expectations of staff and the relentless complaints she has made of
spam, etc.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 178 of 236:
|
Dec 30 14:04 UTC 2006 |
Unintended humor is great.
|
spooked
|
|
response 179 of 236:
|
Dec 30 22:11 UTC 2006 |
Sindi is an ironic type of lady - got to love 'em :)
|
keesan
|
|
response 180 of 236:
|
Dec 30 23:38 UTC 2006 |
Sindi was not being ironic.
|
spooked
|
|
response 181 of 236:
|
Dec 31 00:16 UTC 2006 |
*giggles* :)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 182 of 236:
|
Dec 31 00:21 UTC 2006 |
I'm really sorry to read about your resignations Remmers, but it's
definitely understandable.
|
krokus
|
|
response 183 of 236:
|
Dec 31 01:28 UTC 2006 |
wow... I wish I would have read this before the Grexlunch today.
John, thanks for the efforts over the years.
|
spooked
|
|
response 184 of 236:
|
Dec 31 01:50 UTC 2006 |
This is a defining moment in the history of Grex. If we can get some
fresh, keen, enthusiastic blood on the board - and, especially staff, Grex
may survive (BUT more importantly GROW).
If the dynamic duo can realise they have the power to make a difference,
they should also do the noble deed.
|
keesan
|
|
response 185 of 236:
|
Dec 31 01:54 UTC 2006 |
Would you please stop talking in cliches? Try saying what you said in half
the words.
|
spooked
|
|
response 186 of 236:
|
Dec 31 03:17 UTC 2006 |
Sindi: I could try, however it's what comes naturally :)
Afterall, how do you think I got a PhD? :P
|
spooked
|
|
response 187 of 236:
|
Jan 1 20:39 UTC 2007 |
I move that Dan (cross) and myself (spooked) be re-admitted to staff.
I also move that no staffer can blazarringly revoke root privileges unless
there is irrefutable intention from a staffer to harm Grex. If a staffer
blazarringly revokes another staffer's root privileges, that staffer
should be punished by removing his/her (the blazarringly revoking) root
privileges and not being allowed back on staff for a minimum 12 month
period.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 188 of 236:
|
Jan 1 20:47 UTC 2007 |
I do not believe that spooked has demonstrated the attitudes and people skills
that would make him a useful member of staff. I would be strongly against
his re-admission.
|
spooked
|
|
response 189 of 236:
|
Jan 1 20:57 UTC 2007 |
Oh really :)
Then how was my attitude, technical skills, and people skills never
questioned in over 6 years when I was a staff member?
And, how was no staff member against my recent request to be readmitted?
|
krj
|
|
response 190 of 236:
|
Jan 1 21:05 UTC 2007 |
I like the bit in his proposal about PUNISHMENT.
:)
|
spooked
|
|
response 191 of 236:
|
Jan 1 21:25 UTC 2007 |
Like I have said, Grex is at the cross-roads (pardon the pun) in its
history.
We need staff with the technical skills WILLING to get solutions for its
members and users, instead of dividing its staff.
The first motion I made undoubtedly assists this noble mission.
The second motion protects the dynamic-like-duo-type who have clearly not
been active or helpful in building a staff team who is solution-oriented
IN THE PAST 2-3 YEARS.
What shall Grex decide? It is your future!
|
tod
|
|
response 192 of 236:
|
Jan 1 22:26 UTC 2007 |
I also move that no staffer can blazarringly revoke root privileges unless
there is irrefutable intention from a staffer to harm Grex.
If you're talking about non-staff in possession of root then I disagree. Why
wouldn't someone be pro-active in protecting the system if they see a
non-staff person doing stuff as root?
I think the proper solution is a better change control process of which other
staff are not to "interfere" once there has been an approval to proceed with
the "improvement" (patching, updating, fixing, coding, etc.)
The approval process for implementation shouldn't have to pass all staff but
rather should meet some criteria and have a period where all staff have had
a chance to voice concerns.
Let's focus on this approval method and how it would work so all staff can
participate without an 800 lb gorilla stepping in on a whim.
|
spooked
|
|
response 193 of 236:
|
Jan 1 22:47 UTC 2007 |
The crux of that episode was that it was vast overkill, rude, and no
apology was given. Clearly STeve's actions were (in that instance, and
other instances) counter-productive and team-divisive.
As I have stated numerous times, I have no issues with STeve's technical
capabilities - though, he does not apply them nearly as much as he once did.
What frustrates (actually infruiates) me and many others, is he nazi style of
'leadership'. If Grex can afford to lose highly capable and participating
staff members by the half dozen to dozen (as has happened in the last 2-3
years), then let us not change this 'leadership' example.
Grex - the choice is yours.
|
spooked
|
|
response 194 of 236:
|
Jan 1 22:51 UTC 2007 |
re: 192: No, Tod - I am not talking about non-staff :)
I am talking about staff blazarringly revoking staff!
|
krj
|
|
response 195 of 236:
|
Jan 1 23:03 UTC 2007 |
"Blazarringly" must be something in Australian English which I have
not encountered before.
What I love is how Mic is shaping this up into the struggle between
Good and Evil.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 196 of 236:
|
Jan 1 23:21 UTC 2007 |
I will now go public; so far, I've restricted my comments to staff and board,
which seemed to me sufficient. I object to mic and cross being re-admitted
to staff.
Mic, you've apparently not realised that the Board has not acted to restore
your access because the active staff members don't want you on the staff. So
I'll state it plainly: You are too abrasive to work effectively with the few
of us who are left.
Dan, your case is slightly different: You resigned from staff for, in my
view, insufficient cause: A board member irritated you. I've been told
that action was begun to get you back to work, but then you asked that it
be stopped. You are, in my opinion, too likely to go off in a huff yet
again.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 197 of 236:
|
Jan 1 23:37 UTC 2007 |
I agree quite strongly with resp:188, and in a more childish fashion
want to ask Mic why he is still here? I seem to remember reading at
least one "FINE! I'm LEAVING! You're never going to hear from me again."
posts. And even one "I've asked for my username to be deleted." To
which I say "Dude, way to be mature."
|
scholar
|
|
response 198 of 236:
|
Jan 1 23:42 UTC 2007 |
I think you mean popcorn. :(
|