|
Grex > Coop13 > #370: Nominations for the 2007 Grex Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 236 responses total. |
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. :(
|
mcnally
|
|
response 199 of 236:
|
Jan 2 00:24 UTC 2007 |
However excellent his technical credentials (of which I have no real
knowledge), I would not support mic's request to be re-added to staff
after his recent statements -- it's clear to me that he lacks (and
doesn't even understand the need for) several key attributes.
Technical people often make the mistake of thinking that technical
skills are of paramount importance. I've been guilty in the past of
making poor choices based on similar assumptions. But the reality of
the situation is that when the job is bigger than a one-man job,
other attributes become more important -- much more important, actually.
Grex's technology needs, frankly, are fairly modest. What we really
need on staff are people with good judgment and people who can work
well with other people as part of a team. (That's one reason why I'm
saddened to see John Remmers resign from staff.) It's also important,
I think, for the staff person to be stable, credible, and respected by
the Grex community.
I know that it will offend mic to hear this, and I suspect (based on
his reaction to other recent developments) that he's probably going to
take it very personally and hold a grudge for a very long time, but I
think it would be a dreadfully bad idea to restore his staff privileges,
NOT because of the incident with giving cross root, but because of the
behavior he's show SINCE then, which has been notably lacking in the
attributes we want in a staffer -- calm good judgment, ability to get
along as part of a team, credibility, stability, and respect.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 200 of 236:
|
Jan 2 00:29 UTC 2007 |
re: 196 I think Dan's willingness to make a commitment to being a board
member is worth something.
I'd like to see Dan on staff again. He seems to have recognized that his
"thin-skin" responses need to be modulated, and he seems to be willing to work
on that.
|
spooked
|
|
response 201 of 236:
|
Jan 2 00:44 UTC 2007 |
I'm not offended in the least actually.
It is clear that Grex does not want to address the real issues. I have
tried, unselfishly, to highlight them. I was not sticking around for
personal reasons - I have zilch to gain from being a Grex staffer (a fact
seemingly lost on many).
Good luck 'working' with STeve, Marcus, and the dynamic-duo arse-patting
crew.
You had a choice to move forward - unfortunately you chose to stay with
the past. And, that's your choice. It is sad, but it is one I thought
you were - as a group - non-visionary enough to make.
I lose nothing, and you stick with your cuddly status-quo --- the
wonderful Grex community of non-striving folk.
|
slynne
|
|
response 202 of 236:
|
Jan 2 01:34 UTC 2007 |
FWIW, I also think that cross's willingness to be on the board is
something that should be considered.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 203 of 236:
|
Jan 2 01:52 UTC 2007 |
Let's see if he completes his term, eh?
|
spooked
|
|
response 204 of 236:
|
Jan 2 02:56 UTC 2007 |
Sweep the truth under the carpet... the nice persian carpet.
|
cross
|
|
response 205 of 236:
|
Jan 2 03:43 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #196; Fair enough.
Regarding #203; I plan on it; the only question is whether I get deployed or
reactivated. If that happens, then all bets are off. But honestly, that's
not up to me. :-)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 206 of 236:
|
Jan 2 04:17 UTC 2007 |
re #201:
> I'm not offended in the least actually.
Good, if true. Hold onto that thought, as I've got more to say..
> It is clear that Grex does not want to address the real issues. I have
> tried, unselfishly, to highlight them. I was not sticking around for
> personal reasons - I have zilch to gain from being a Grex staffer (a fact
> seemingly lost on many).
>
> Good luck 'working' with STeve, Marcus, and the dynamic-duo arse-patting
> crew.
>
> You had a choice to move forward - unfortunately you chose to stay with
> the past. And, that's your choice. It is sad, but it is one I thought
> you were - as a group - non-visionary enough to make.
One of the reasons I really wish you'd shut up about this is that I happen
to agree with you to a limited extent -- I think Grex has a problem with
its staff culture and now is the time to start doing something about it.
I'd like to actually have a serious conversation about this, but you're a
one-man wrecking crew for your own position -- the way you're going about
arguing in favor of reform is probably the most effective way to ensure
that nobody takes the reform position seriously.
|
tod
|
|
response 207 of 236:
|
Jan 2 04:40 UTC 2007 |
I take it seriously regardless of spooked's venting. I'm sure most others
don't based on their responses, though. People are fixated on personalities
and individuals rather than coming up with a fair process for future would-be
staff volunteers. I'm trying to ignore all the psychoanalyzing everyone is
enjoying only because I think everyone is repeating themselves mostly. Well,
I don't think Mike is repeating himself. He's like E.F.Hutton.
|
cross
|
|
response 208 of 236:
|
Jan 2 05:01 UTC 2007 |
I've got to agree with Todd here.
|
spooked
|
|
response 209 of 236:
|
Jan 2 09:56 UTC 2007 |
Sorry, I like to make myself heard - especially because I know I speak the
truth. I will shut up, because as I said I have nothing to gain from
being on staff. I was sacrificing myself for the good of Grex, and I hope
for its sake it wakes up to itself.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 210 of 236:
|
Jan 2 14:16 UTC 2007 |
resp:209 Mic, you make a really crappy Martyr.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 211 of 236:
|
Jan 2 15:26 UTC 2007 |
Todd, "most others" who do take it seriously may be behaving like me: trying
to stay out the fray until mic finishes venting.
|
spooked
|
|
response 212 of 236:
|
Jan 2 16:02 UTC 2007 |
*giggles* I'm not the perfect kitten, Anne - but I try ;)
|