[svlug] Q&A for poll at SVLUG March 1 meeting

Ron Hinchley ron at biovalid.com
Thu Mar 2 14:54:19 PST 2006

As an outsider I was wondering, Is this an issue of belief, or are both 
sides right?

The theory of escalation I use indicates there are large gaps in reason 
somewhere present which are replaced using the properties of 
justification (some kind of alchemy where one offense is converted into 
some other action or thought); a form of magical thinking.

I have absolutely no right to but in because I know nothing about the 
issues even having read the threads, but this smells like a growing 
problem. Unfortunately I had the grown-up myth perpetrated on me as a 
child and it's made my life miserable, but the correct solution for an 
offense is to have no escalation. Events should be remain discrete, and 
perhaps discreet. Society does not fall apart contrary to popular 
wisdom. I would like to see an escalation witch hunt; it would please me 
very much!

You really want to see some behavior, visit a Church with this sort of 
thing going on. It becomes clear it is not about issues but about some 
kind of infection, like the partisan divide gathering people on opposite 
sides. Hurt feelings affect organizational culture because the injuries 
persist in the organization after the protagonists have gone.

Yours somewhat disrespectfully,


J. Paul Reed wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 at 19:46:31, Ian Kluft arranged the bits on my disk to say:
>> I've posted a page with my own answers to some of the questions which have
>> come up about the poll which will be held at tomorrow's SVLUG meeting.
>>    http://ian.kluft.com/opinions/svlug-200603/
> I have been asked numerous times whether or not this whole thing is a
> personal issue or whether it's about something bigger.
> For me, as SVLUG's President, this whole issue, this whole vote, all of
> this time and energy was spent so that we can have a useful conversation
> about the concrete benefits SVLUG has received in the last four years from
> SBAY and what the costs to SVLUG are.
> This issue was originally raised by Ian himself in early January: "You
> already know I'd let SVLUG go in an instant if the rules we agreed on are
> followed. ... My prediction: SBAY would be smaller but more stable and
> vastly more sustainable after a split." His comments are the main reason I
> ever took the time to consider bringing it up to the SVLUG membership.
> This issue shouldn't be about any single individual's subjective
> commentary.
> I see many of the events outlined above quite differently than Ian, as you
> might expect. I respect Ian's right to see it his way and I respect his
> right to post his personal views about those events to his personal
> website.
> Like many, I suspect, after such heated discussion on this list, I just
> don't follow what this adds to the discussion about the *benefits* and the
> *costs* of the SBAY/SVLUG relationship. Is this SBAY's official position?
> Or one specific individual's interpretation?
> In any event, as SVLUG members, every single one of you has the right to
> ask me directly why I've led the group the way I have and why I've made the
> decisions I have.
> I'll be talking about the costs and the benefits to SVLUG of being a part
> of SBAY at tomorrow's meeting.
> That's what this issue is about. And that's is what I intend to speak to.
> I hope you'll all join us for the discussion tomorrow evening.
> Later,
> Paul
> --
> President
> Silicon Valley Linux Users' Group
> preed at svlug.org
> _______________________________________________
> svlug mailing list
> svlug at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/svlug

More information about the svlug mailing list