response 28 of 53:

Dec 8 01:39 UTC 2003

I disagree with Mary on this one.  Dan did the most rational thing he could
with the information he had at the time.  he did ask how to handle it; he did
do what other staff members had done in the same situation.  

To hold him publically to a different standard even after you know other staff
members advised him differently than you would have done it, is not rational.
Rational is to say, ok, I didn't know staff was doing it this way, let's talk
about how _staff_ handles these kinds of situations, not how _cross_ handled
this one.  

And I still dont think he was _wrong_.  He did it differently than you would
have liked.  That does not make it wrong.  That does not make it "admit you
were wrong and apologize".  

I think he did the _right_ thing.  with what he knew at the time.  To say,
you should have known that I would disagree with staff behavior does not make
what he did wrong.  

For jumping to conclusions about an account, he owes that account an apology.
But not a global 'mea culpa'.

response 30 of 53:

Dec 8 04:46 UTC 2003

I'm pretty sure the only way to live properly is to classify everything you
dislike as wrong.  YEah, pretty sure.

response 32 of 53:

Dec 8 16:17 UTC 2003

Dan, I think it's fair to say that most of the people who responded, 
myself included, to your actions on this matter did so without 
having the full picture available.  We could see effects, but we 
couldn't see the process of decision-making.

I'd like to apologize for anything I've said which was reflectve of 
ignorance of the full story at the time.  I think you were caught in 
a complex situation which you handled the best way you could, and 
there were a number of remarks from several people which appear to 
have been mistaken or misinterpreted.

The best thing we can do with this is try to figure out how to make 
sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.  Perhaps we need a 
more clearly defined structure of rules and appropriate responses to 
their breakage.  Perhaps simply a better system of communication.  
Whichever the case, I'd like to see us move past the recriminations 
and focus on fixing the problem.  It's important for staff to be a 
part of this discussion because it is staff who will really 
implement the fixes.  Board should be aware and supportive of the 
effort, but it isn't the board that will be handling these things.

response 34 of 53:

Dec 8 19:38 UTC 2003

It's true that board members don't have access to all the information
staff has.  We don't get staff email, and most of us don't read the
staff conference (though I think we can).  I wasn't aware of all the
details that cross explained above, and some of his actions make more
sense in light of them.  
  I, too, find myself with some concerns about the practice of locking
an account because it is suspected to be used by a known vandal.  I
think it deserves further discussion, as does the idea of what to do
when a user account is locked mistakenly -- but those things have
nothing to do with cross individually.  
  
I really think it's important to be supportive of staff, especially
right now.  We have a couple of people on grex that have discovered a
way to attack them personally, by doing borderline-abusive behavior,
then coming to coop and complaining loudly about anything staff does to
them as a result.  And because it *is* pretty borderline stuff, they are
finding some support among the normal denizens of coop.  Instead of
running malicious software, these vandals are trying to infect the
community of Grex with malicious memes.  
  What we can do about it is be supportive of our staff volunteers, and
-- this is important -- cut them some slack.  If we disagree with the
way staff handles something, we still need to talk about it, that's what
we do on Grex, but let's be particularly careful to use tact.  Let's
discuss what we should do the next time something similar happens rather
than pick apart an individual staff member's actions.  Let's talk about
what the proper solution to the problem is rather than questioning a
staff member's qualifications.  

Mary, I think you could do a little better at this.  

Dan...  *let* us be supportive of you.  Do you know what being the
high'n'mighty "President of Grex" means?  It means you get to hold the
gavel at board meetings.  Well, and call Zingerman's to reserve a room,
too.  But that's pretty much it.  Mary doesn't speak for the rest of us,
any more than jp2 speaks for the rest of us.  Would you get this upset
because jp2 disagreed with your decisions?  

response 36 of 53:

Dec 8 20:50 UTC 2003

flem, when you put it that way, yes, it does seem that cross gives 
mary's opinion a little too much credit than it deserves. But when it 
is the president that says such thing, and the president is supposed 
to be the representative of the board and the members, it's easy to 
see why her opinion and public commentary on the situation would upset 
him. (Just like most countries' ideas of Americans are based on what 
they hear Bush say). Especially when very few people stood up for him. 

And it wasn't only cross that got the feeling that he was being 
singled out. It was nearly everyone who read that item. Not too great 
an image of board being portrayed, I'm afraid,

response 38 of 53:

Dec 8 21:09 UTC 2003

mary has done a lot for grex in the past and present, and I hope will continue
to do so in the future.  That being said, I think she should keep her nose
out of the day-to-day running of staff matters - let them censor themselves,
if necessary.  I think they are more than capable of doing so in a "grexlike"
manner, without aid of the fist of policy being wielded in public comments.

response 40 of 53:

Dec 8 22:58 UTC 2003

What a snake pit. ;-)

Look, I disagreed with the way this was handled.  Most people,
if not everyone else disagrees with me.  I'm fine with that.
Really.  I have a pretty healthy relationship with critism.

But take a deep breath and do the same, please.  Be okay
with my opinion being different from yours.  Because that's
all this is.

response 42 of 53:

Dec 9 01:00 UTC 2003

But surely you realize that as president, your opinion carries more weight .

response 44 of 53:

Dec 9 02:33 UTC 2003

I hereby decree, by order of my authority as President of Grex,
that tomorrow no one shall utter a single negative word on Grex.
Not a single staff member, nor board member, nor generous member, nor
humble user.  All shall be pleasant and kind for the entire
24 hours.

Any questions?

response 46 of 53:

Dec 9 02:34 UTC 2003

re 36
>cross that got the feeling that he was being
>singled out.

Cross had that feeling because he was the one that made the mistake, and
refused to acknowledge the error.  Of course he was centered out, and for good
reason.

response 48 of 53:

Dec 9 05:26 UTC 2003

Jew ass.

response 50 of 53:

Dec 9 05:42 UTC 2003

Don't purposely misinterpret what I say.  It makes you look stupid and Grex
look arbitrary.