<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] Re: [ga] King Philip's Proclamation to the Colony
On 2001-07-06 23:38:22 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>I am quite surprised at your flame as I thought that's what you
>wanted to avoid.
What in my message was a flame in your eyes?
Calling Danny Younger "President Younger" when he elects to talk
about "King Philip" in the subject? Describing what the GA should
do, and what it does? Or saying that the co-chairs are doing an
extremely bad job ad getting the GA to work - indeed a much worse
job than Harald and Roberto did in the past?
Doesn't the fact that the GA chairs aren't taken seriously by most
involved tell you something? Doesn't the fact that most list
monitors have resigned tell you something?
Or do you consider it a flame when I say that both co-chairs
considerably contribute to the noise level on the list?
Now, what would you consider discussing silly list management issues
on the ga plenum, and "appealing" them to the NC and the ICANN
board? Or what precisely are rants about ICANN being a "tyranny"?
Sorry, but that kind of behaviour looks like kindergarten to me.
(THIS was a flame.)
I'd _really_ like to see the two of you trying to work towards
describing consensus on actual issues. The .org debate would have
been a way to do this. But you don't set priorities or manage
debate by posting 40kB worth of questions. And you don't foster
debate that way. Instead, it would be the chairs' job to try to
identify priority topics, and kind of steer debate - by summarizing,
by asking question, by acting professionally.
>The GA is dysfunctional and I am trying to get it to work.
I don't say that you are acting in bad faith. I just say that you
have collected an amazing record of total or partial failures.
>Until a day or so ago my onlist posts have been a model of
>courtesy.
Why aren't they any more? When the chairs don't obey decorum, why
should anyone? In fact, volunteering as a list monitor may be quite
pointless in this case - we can't suspend the chairs, right?
>It is my view that the sublists are the only way to get things
>sorted out. You should understand the list dynamics -- people
>follow the previous poster. Jefsey has undertaken to wreck the
>system. He's succeeding.
If a single person is able to wreck the sublist system, that
basically means that something's seriously wrong. But, hey, how
about sending him an "off-topic" nastygram and banning him if he
doesn't behave? May be healthy anyway.
>>While I concur that the NC doesn't do a good job in helping to
>>manage the GA, I have to note that the GA's current chairs are
>>doing the worst job ever at this.
>I had hoped you might help us. I forced a showdown with the NC
>just to get us in a position where we could ask Elisabeth to do
>what any service provider would do as a matter of course. You
>know that quite well.
From what you forwarded me, you contributed yourself a fair amount
to ruining your relationship to Elisabeth.
>If I am doing a poor job it is only because the task I am trying
>to do is beyond anyone's capability. There is too much vested
>interest against the GA working.
Are you just claiming that you are perfect, or what? You,
personally, have been considerably contributing to the current
chaos.
How about a sublist system which doesn't really reflect consensus?
How about an exercise in clemency which overrides the list monitors,
without even consulting them?
How about telling Elisabeth that you are "testing" her by asking for
a silly footer being added to messages to ga-abuse?
Face it: You are making mistakes. You are stepping over others'
toes over and over. Blaming "vested interest" on this doesn't help.
Trying to learn from your mistakes does.
>Blaming me, after two or three months, is quite unjust. It failed
>long before I started.
I'm not blaming you for all the evil on the GA. I'm just blaming
you (both of you) for making things even worse.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|