Re: ti-emu: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ti-emu: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
This is absolutly appalling. does anybody agree with me? I what bryan
reinstated immediatly. He know what he is doing.
>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>
>Cc: <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: ti-emu: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
>Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:15:25 -0500
>Reply-To: ti-emulator@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
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com