A86: Re: Re^9e99: Re: ACZ: Re: Account Abuse


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

A86: Re: Re^9e99: Re: ACZ: Re: Account Abuse




> > For the most part, everyone in the group is very mature - I recall a
> > nice little debate on here about the need for libraries, in which I
> > stood alone against just about everyone else.  But we were able to keep
> > it to a mature exchange of ideas rather than let it grow to a heated
> > argument, and the more I think over what Dux, Matt, David, and the rest
> > of you said, the more I think you're right and I'm wrong.
>
> I've read a86 for two years and I must say it's probably the most
> intelligent of the mailing lists. You guys say a lot of insightful stuff
> and you very rarely deviate from the topic.


Thanks.


> > I get involved in a LOT of problems in real life because I'm very, very,
> > very stubborn.  And that's just because, from my (admittedly very
> > conceited) point of view, I respect only a very small handful of people
> > - those whom I consider some of the most intellent I know.  If someone
> > else tries to persuade me with their argument, it's nearly impossible.
> > I've had a psychologist (my parents divorced recently =( ) tell me that
> > same thing.
>
> In my real life, I respect about six people. My family contains one
> of those six, and neither of my parents rank among them. I don't
> like many other people for many other reasons. I guess I'm just
> antisocial, hence the email address bluecalx@antisocial.com.
> It doesn't really bother me, though, as much as most people would
> think.
> But I digress. Read below.


Hrmm.....


> I can see others'
> > reasoning -- and they've provided some sensible reasoning for the
> > opposing viewpoint.  So much, in fact, that I have to agree.  For the
> > most part, the only other place I've ever seen someone who can change my
> > views like that is on Slashdot - and you can't find a public place with
> > more intelligent debates than that.
>
> I'd really like to know what the average IQ of the ticalc.org staff is.
> I'd say it's quite high. We try to hire staff members that can partake in
> the intelligent discussions we get involved in. I've talked on the phone
> with Andy, Phil, Eric and Nathan several times in the past few weeks and I
> hope to continue doing so in the future. We get a lot done and usually,
> with many intelligent people in the group, all sides are heard and WHY
> everyone thinks that way. This is a Good Thing(TM).


"The power to, as you say "romp on over you", comes from the fact that a
majority of the staff says so." - Magnus Hagander, 22 November 1998

During the discussion of the new staff structure thing, my views were not
properly heard.  Chris even told me to shutup and let the thing pass until
things could be worked out.  He did not want to discuss every little detail
before he made me vote on it.  In fact, he even went ahead and said it was
implemented before I had cast my vote.

I take it things don't happen like that anymore?


> > The point is, this whole group structure that we follow is completely
> > dependent upon the "natural leadership" and "unanimous decisions" that
> > David was talking about.  And yes, I think that the personality that I
> > and others gauge from conversations with others (via email and ICQ) is a
> > very important when we're pondering new members - not only must one be a
> > good programmer, but they must be open-minded and group oriented.  I
> > think that our problem right now is that we haven't been working
> > together as a group on much at all so far.
>
> I think the major fault with David's point is the fact that neither he nor
> Bryan knows how ticalc.org operates anymore. There's no more coordinators
> list. The power of the coords has been reduced drastically and OUR [i.e.
> the people who aren't coords] OPINIONS ARE VALUED. No matter what anyone
> else says, there's nobody that can attest to how we work better than the
> staff themselves. I can honestly say that the only thing I can find
> displeasurable with working on ticalc.org is all this bullshit that's
> still going on with Bryan vs. ticalc.org vs. the rest of the world. To
> make a long point short, I love ticalc.org. I love my job. The atmosphere
> on the staff list and on the phone is friendly and open. Things get done
> and very little arguing occurs. Sure, we run into a snafu or two (or three
> or four :)) along the way, but we deal with them and move on.


There was a coordinators list?  Really, I was told that wasn't the case.

But the fact remains, there ARE "coordinators".  And why do you say that your
opinions are valued in all caps?  Was this not the case a few months ago, or
what?  Do you admit ticalc.org made some mistakes in the last, almost a year?
The situation you described sounds VERY DIFFERENT than what was the case on the
mailing list a year ago, when Chris was actually nagging Kirk and Ahmed to
change their votes.  I frankly find some of it hard to believe.


> > Remember, be VERY careful who you give responsibility and power to.
> > Make sure that it's someone you can get along with and who is condusive
> > to working openly in a group.  It seems to me to be becoming more
> > obvious by the day that Bryan is and never was suitable for such
> > responsibilities. I'd rather give the responsibility to someone who may
> > not be the hardest worker, but has the proper personality, than to
> > someone who works extremely hard but is not mature enough to control his
> > or her self.


I'm not sure who said the above text, since it appears to be in double > > but
David didn't say that.  I assume it's Nicks for now.

The point is not who responsibility and power should be given to.  The point is,
with a group of 8 people, you DO NOT NEED coordinators who have power over the
other people.  The situation David originally described is how it should be
done.


> As I see it, power has evened out across the staff a great deal even
> since
> my hiring. The entire staff has been very nice towards me and
> they've even
> accepted many of my ideas (fake news, download stats, me/Kirk's
> featured
> programs). It's not a question of imbalance of power because the
> power the
> coords wield is purely ceremonial at the moment. As I see it, my
> opinions
> are valued with just as much esteem as the next staff member's.
> And that's
> what counts.


Well that's great if its true.  Maybe Chris has finally seen the light.

Bryan



References: