[svlug] ISSUE: SVLUG's continued status with SBAY

[Rick Moen]

Quoting David Masten (dmasten at piratelabs.org):

> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 10:23 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting David Masten (dmasten at piratelabs.org):
> > 
> > > if Paul performed an specific act which is clearly unethical and
> > > possibly unlawful and which act Paul had clearly stated he intended to
> > > do....
> > 
> > <raised eyebrow>
> > 
> > Oh, pray _do_ tell.
> 
> Paul stated that he would officially represent SBAY at the past SVLUG
> meeting, and specifically denied SBAY officers from presenting. 

Actually, Paul did _not_ say that.  That was stated by that _other_ guy,
the one who twice threatened to remove SVLUG's elected president behind
our back without consulting or notifying us -- the same guy who goes
around claiming Silicon Valley Computer Society has "disappeared"
(false), opines that an independent SVLUG would fail "just like BAFUG"
(which group, in fact, is doing fine), and so on.

What Paul _did_ say, and what is obviously true, was:  "My position has
always been that this is an internal SVLUG issue, for SVLUG's members to
decide."

That is very far from "unethical", much less "unlawful".  It's what's
called leadership.

Please do take a good look at it, David, so you can tell the difference:
Leadership involves things like Paul's evident attempt to put aside
persional feelings, be scrupulously fair, protect the interests and
rights of the members, and resist the temptation to reply in kind to
numerous cheap shots.

Leadership does not reside in, by contrast, ducking the question when
asked whether you committed a particular screw-up, saying neither yes
nor no but instead diving headlong in self-justifying spin-control like
calling it "an attempt to use the rules available in the By-Laws to
force a more open discussion process".

Leadership doesn't subsist in attempting to distract attention from what
critics say by attempting character assassination on them, either -- but
I trust that that particular bit of hypocrisy was pretty obvious.

> > > ...SIG coordinator...
> > 
> > Elected president.

> The SBAY Bylaws which I was referencing state "SIG coordinator", that
> the same office is, within SVLUG, known as "president" I thought was
> understood.

And yet, the meanings and connotations are _drastically_ different --
and quite vitally so.


And meanwhile, we're being urged by several people to adopt a solution
(a "SIG charter") that _ignores the problem_:  The basic problem is that
SBAY SIG status really doesn't benefit SVLUG at all.  There's nothing we
have within that relationship that we cannot have equally well without
being a property of that corporation.  

A "SIG charter" would do nothing to fix that.  So, it's completely
irrelevant to the issue at hand.