Re: A89: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?


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

Re: A89: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?




I'd say start your own.  You don't sound like much of a team player.
Maybe you could do better working under your rules.


From:           	"Bryan Rabeler" <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
To:             	<assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org>, <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>,
       	<assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org>, <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>,
       	<assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>, <assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org>,
       	<ti-basic@lists.ticalc.org>, <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>,
       	<ti-emulator@lists.ticalc.org>, <shell-developers@lists.ticalc.org>,
       	<CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM>
Copies to:      	<mha@ticalc.org>, <aselle@ticalc.org>, <dornfeld@ticalc.org>,
       	<isaac@ticalc.org>, <ahmed@ticalc.org>, <nbr@ticalc.org>,
       	<henrick@ticalc.org>, <davidell@ticalc.org>, <nhaines@ticalc.org>,
       	<kirk@ticalc.org>, <amitai@ticalc.org>
Subject:        	A89: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
Date sent:      	Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:15:25 -0500
Send reply to:  	assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

> 
> Here is some of my comments on what happened a few days at ticalc.org.  Please
> take time to read this, it is very interesting.  For those of you who don't like a lot of
> details, sorry. :)  I may have gone overboard, but I have tried to be as accurate
> as I could.
> 
> If you can't read this, you can always get the same
> text here: http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/ticalc.txt
> 
> 
>         It has been rumored in the past few days that I left or retired from 
> ticalc.org.  This rumor is not true, in fact, it is very far from the truth.  
> Dismissed, fired, disposed of.. that's what really happened.
>         This happened on the night of Thursday, March 4, 1999 at around 9:20 PM 
> EST; only a few hours after I had been adding files, answering ticalc.org
> e-mail, and adding a news article for Icarus Productions, a site I was very proud 
> to get hosted at ticalc.org.  Ironically, I was not at the computer when this 
> happened and didn't return to the computer until the next morning, which is very 
> unusual.  I had no school on Friday, due to a teacher inservice day, so I had 
> planned to spend a few hours answering some help mail after I woke up.  However, 
> to my surprise, I found my computer screen filled with AIM and ICQ messages, I 
> was disconnected from my SSH connections to ticalc.org, and I was booted off 
> IRC.  My first instinct was that I had been disconnected from my ISP, but that 
> wasn't the case.  So I simply tried to log back onto ticalc.org, but a strange 
> thing happened, my password didn't work.  Then something clicked in my
> mind--there must be some connection here between the password not working and
> being booted off IRC.  I knew there was some problem with ticalc.org.  So I
> reloaded the page, and to my great surprise, there was a new article posted
> entitled "Bryan Rabeler and ticalc.org Part Ways".  Then I just went into a
> state of shock and couldn't believe it.  "Why, Why?" I asked myself, "How can
> they just get rid of me like that?"
>         I checked my non-ticalc.org e-mail and discovered two e-mails, one from 
> Magnus and one from Chris.  Magnus had sent me the carefully crafted dismissal 
> letter which the four coordinators wrote.  Chris sent me a ZIP file which 
> contained the files in my home directory, and said that my mail was coming soon.  
> I still haven't gotten my mail, I suspect every piece is being read to get 
> missing information for the people who are going to takeover my sections.
>  There was no single incident labeled as the reason for my dismissal, 
> instead they say, it was a series of incidents.  I can probably guess what these 
> incidents are, but in my humble opinion, they are far from dismissable offences.  
> I will try to explain a few of these incidents.
>         The first incident that I can remember is the so-called "TI-Files hack" 
> incident, which occurred in early November, 1998.  What happened was I got the 
> FTP password to the TI-Files from a member who was resigning, I logged in using 
> that password, and deleted about 15 files in the main directory.  I knew TI-
> Files made backups once a week and that doing this wouldn't cause any unfixable 
> damage, it was more or less a joke.  But nevertheless, nothing can take away 
> from how unprofessional and disrespectful this act was, and I am sorry for it.  
> I made a public apology on November 10, 1998 in the form of a news article on 
> ticalc.org.
>         A month or so later, Magnus and Chris proposed a new "staff structure".  
> Up until this point, the ticalc.org staff operated as if each member was an 
> equal.  No staff member could really tell another staff member what to do, 
> although Magnus did have some final authority since he owns the box and the 
> connection, and Isaac since he owns the domain name, however Isaac has been 
> retired for a few years now.  Such a staff structure prevented people from 
> telling others what to do and made it difficult for a staff member to be forced 
> out.  However, all that was about to change.  The new staff structure called for 
> four coordinators to be in ultimate control of the project and to make virtually 
> all the important decisions.  Specific rules were written up for each section, 
> such as the file archives, reviews editor, etc.  It was then presented to the 
> staff mailing list for discussion.  Many of the veteran members agreed with it 
> right away (Amitai, Henrik, and Isaac) and the newer members also agreed right 
> away (Ahmed and Niklas).  I suspect the veteran members agreed quickly because 
> they trusted the wisdom of Magnus and Chris, and the newer members agreed 
> quickly because they may not have had the "guts" to stand up to the tidal wave 
> of support for the new measure.
>         I looked the new proposal over carefully but in the end, I didn't agree 
> with it.  For one, the proposed coordinators were Magnus, Chris, Isaac, and 
> Andy.  These were good candidates for the job and I didn't feel any of them were 
> unqualified, however I felt I was being left out because I was the only "active" 
> member that wasn't a coordinator.  Sure, other members did work now and then, 
> but I contributed just as many hours as everyone else did, most likely a lot 
> more, and quite frankly, I felt like they wanted all the power and didn't 
> appreciate me at all.  Then after I voiced my concerns about that, Chris
> e-mailed me with a metaphor saying I was like the cook in a restaurant and they 
> were the owners.  That made be feel *SO* much better.
>         I also voiced concerns that the coordinators could tell each section 
> editor how to run their section and it would turn into a dictatorship.  However, 
> I was assured again that most decisions would be made by the entire staff and 
> the coordinators would not tell anyone how to run their section (a rule later to 
> be broken).
>         Finally, I voiced concerns that the process for electing coordinators was 
> not really fair.  The process called for two votes each time an election was to 
> be held.  The first vote was on whether or not the new staff structure should 
> continue and the second was if the current four coordinators should be kept for 
> another term.  Every staff member could vote on the first question and only the 
> non-coordinators could vote on the second.  Now if you take the first question, 
> you can assume that all four coordinators will vote yes on that, and so you only 
> need two more yes votes to get a majority.  So even if a majority of the
> non-coordinators are upset with the policy, it still stays in effect.  With the 
> second vote, if a majority of the non-coordinators voted no, the policy called 
> for new coordinators to be nominated and voted upon.  Lets say that all the
> non-coordinators banded together and voted in three new coordinators (Magnus is by 
> default the editor-in-chief and always a coordinator).  Now you are in the 
> position of having coordinators without root access having "power" over people 
> with root access.  Such a situation would not be ideal.  Any way you slice this 
> coordinator thing, its not really that fair.  You are going to have people that 
> are always coordinators for "life" and people who work for years on the project 
> but are never given the opportunity to be a coordinator.  That's just the way 
> the system is.  Do you think Magnus and Chris would have proposed and promoted 
> this new staff structure if they were not picked to be the coordinators?  
> Probably not.  They were already the veteran leaders on the staff, and so their 
> opinions already counted slightly more than everyone else's, what more could 
> they want right?
>         I know what a lot of you must be thinking, "Why go through all this 
> trouble to stop this new policy?"  Well, the way the staff worked up until that 
> point was good.  We were able to talk about things as a team and work through 
> our disagreements.  Now the coordinators would run things and have the final 
> say.  If we didn't like their decision, then too bad.  Does the book "Animal 
> Farm" ring any bells here?  I even changed my nickname on IRC to "Snowball" 
> because of this.  Now the nickname fits perfectly.
>         In the end, I was the only one who strongly disagreed with the new 
> proposal.  Only after Chris told me that I could be a coordinator after the next 
> election did I reluctantly vote for the proposal.  Now that I look back on it, I 
> should probably have either opposed it all the way or resigned over it.  
> However, the result is nearly the same as it is now, so it didn't make much 
> difference in the end.
>         The new staff structure was passed sometime in December and the next 
> election was scheduled for the end of January.
>         Sometime in mid-January, Chris asked me to document the procedures I use 
> to run the file archives, since I am the only one who does the file archives and 
> I go by very specific rules and guidelines.  I was reluctant to do so at first, 
> because doing so would mean that Kirk Meyer (the designated backup file 
> archiver) would have an excuse to start working on the file archives.  There is 
> one little bit of information you need to know before I continue.  When I joined 
> the ticalc.org project on March 2, 1997, my job was the file archives.  I have 
> been doing them for exactly two years and two days (ironic isn't it?).  I have 
> tested every single program I have added or updated to the archives on one of my 
> calculators, to make sure it works well and doesn't contain any inappropriate 
> material.  I know exactly where every file is and why certain files are where 
> they are.  You could say I have grown "attached" to them.  So naturally, I 
> didn't want Kirk working on them.  For one, it wasn't necessary.  I felt I doing 
> a good job and we had other sections that needed a lot more work, such as the 
> reviews (5 new reviews in the last month is not exactly outstanding by any 
> means).  Second, I didn't want anything messed up.  When new files are added, 
> updated, or moved around, I no longer know where everything is and it's less 
> effective for me as the file archiver.  However, I did write up a long 
> documentation file (16,497 bytes and 362 lines long) which detailed my 
> procedures.  I presented this to the rest of the staff and Chris was pleased.  
> Weeks later Kirk, new to the staff, was the first to comment on it.  He said 
> many of my procedures were useless and redundant, and that testing the program 
> on the calculator was not necessary.  I responded by telling him that those are 
> my procedures and that is how it is to be done.  I believe that testing all 
> programs on the calculator was what made ticalc.org unique and better from other 
> rival sites.  So why should I, a two-year veteran at the file archives, have to 
> change my procedures because a "newbie" doesn't like them?  I was accused of 
> being unwilling to compromise here.
>         At the end of January, it came time for the first coordinator elections 
> after the proposal had been agreed to.  Each staff member e-mailed their vote to 
> the staff mailing list.  I don't remember exactly how everyone voted on the 
> second question, but this is pretty close.  I voted no along with Ahmed, and 
> Kirk voted yes.  None of the others voted.  It could have been different, but I 
> know the vote was 2-1 in favor of new coordinators.  However, after Chris 
> "talked" to Ahmed, Ahmed changed his vote to undecided, so the vote was tied at 
> 1-1, which isn't a majority.  Chris said that Ahmed didn't even understand what 
> he was voting for, and therefore his first vote was not valid.  I do question, 
> however, Chris' motive for initially contacting Ahmed about his vote.
>         There was also another area in which I was accused of not cooperating and 
> not compromising.  During the month of January and part of February, I was 
> getting behind on the file archives and had almost 200 files in the pending 
> directory.  A few of the staff members got on my back about this, and I began to 
> work on the backlog.  After I had the backlog down to about 100 files, Magnus 
> demanded that Kirk work on the file archives at the same time, so as to get the 
> backlog down to zero.  This made me upset because I was already working hard on 
> the backlog and it would be down to zero in a couple days.  You may be asking 
> again, "Why make such a big deal about this?"  Well, as I said above, I took my 
> job of doing the file archives very seriously and was fairly protective of them.  
> In addition, Kirk was the backup file archiver, a position I felt was 
> unnecessary from the start.  Under the staff contract passed a few months ago, 
> the backup file archiver is not to start adding/updating files unless the main 
> file archiver is absent for a few days (I said 72 hours in my documentation I 
> wrote up for Chris).  So Kirk started to add files to the archive while I was 
> also adding files to the archive.  Most people won't understand this, but that 
> situation does not work very well.  I told Kirk to stop and let me do my job, 
> but he would not stop.  So I moved the pending files to a secret location and 
> added them one by one, so Kirk could not mess up my work.  This entire situation 
> came about because the coordinators felt that they could tell me how to run my 
> section, something they told me they wouldn't do when I opposed the staff 
> structure.
>         A few days later, the backlog was down to zero and Kirk was not bothering 
> me about the files.  All was good I thought.  Then Kirk started to write this 
> little program that supposedly checked any program file (*.8??, *.9??) for 
> integrity and automatically took screenshots all by itself.  I was skeptical of 
> such a program, especially since he promoted it as a substitute for testing 
> programs on the calculator.  I have no idea why he spent so much time working on 
> the program if he was only the backup file archiver, and thus would probably 
> never have a time to use it (however I have a few guesses here).  Other staff 
> members liked the idea but I opposed it.  I suspect this was another incident in 
> which I was "unwilling to compromise".  Perhaps I fail to understand why I, as 
> the veteran file archiver here, know less about doing file archives than the 
> rest of the staff.  Why doesn't the "expert's" opinion count here?
>         So in the end, I gather that the combination of all these incidents was 
> the reason I was fired.  Many of you may not understand why I had to disagree on 
> many of these issues, but trust me, I felt very strongly about those things and 
> you have to question whether there was really a conspiracy to get rid of me.
>  I was told by a current staff member that the "movement" to dismiss me 
> started many months ago.  This could have even started before or during the 
> discussion on the new staff structure.  You have to agree that with the new 
> staff structure, it is much easier to dismiss someone than it was before.  Plus, 
> I believe that one of the main reasons Chris told me to write up documentation 
> on how I handle the file archives was so someone else would know how to do it 
> after they "disposed" of me.  The thought of such a thing makes me sick.
>         Now the coordinators will say that there was no conspiracy to dispose of 
> me.  They can say what they want, but think about it, there are _always_ 
> conspiracies and cover-ups.  I believe this new staff structure and coordinator 
> thing will eventually ruin ticalc.org.  The coordinators discuss everything in 
> secret and don't have to explain everything to the entire staff.
>         Now that the first person has been fired from ticalc.org, it will be 
> easier to do the next time.  I always thought ticalc.org was different and 
> unique in the fact that they had never fired anyone, unlike TI-Files and other 
> rival sites, and were able to talk out their differences.  Sure, I disagreed on 
> a few things in the last few months, but the coordinators were unable to 
> understand where I was coming from.
>         ticalc.org has been a fairly big part of my life these last two years and 
> it has ended very suddenly and unexpectedly.  At this time, I'm not sure if I 
> want to work on another TI site, start a new one, or do something different.  If 
> you have any suggestions, comments, or questions, you can e-mail me at 
> brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us.  I'll still be hanging around on the mailing 
> lists, AIM, ICQ, and IRC.
> 
> --
> Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
>    Former maintainer of The Fargo Archive
>    Former ticalc.org staff member
> 
> 


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Group:        http://www.halcyon.com/ipscone/wwwboard/

Protect your constitutional rights. Your favorite one may be next!
-----------------------------------------------------------------


References: