[svlug] Announcement: VP transition - bad attitude

Paul Reiber reiber at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 16:56:48 PST 2007


On Nov 30, 2007 3:50 PM, Alvin Oga <alvin at mail.linux-consulting.com> wrote:
[...]
I wrote:
> > work with me and SVLUG will succeed, or work against me and watch
> > the resulting fight decimate the group - your choice.
>
> very very very bad .. that you think you can destroy svlug
> because you want it done your way because you're prez or else ...

Sorry, Alvin, that's REALLY REALLY REALLY FAR from what I actually
said - no putting words in my mouth, OK? I said the FIGHT would
decimate the group.  I.e. that people on the list will get fed up with
the in-fighting and leave.

I'm betting one or two are close to doing just that right now.
(please, bear with us!)

[...]
>         - there is nothing to fight about other than ignoring the community
>         - which is speaking out against you ... publicly ...
>         - to let you, the community, officers and volunteers know something is wrong

Nah... you're seeing a problem where there isn't one.  Volunteers come
and go - people have obligations, they get tired of helping, get
exasperated for whatever reason (maybe they wanted me to do their
planning for them and I didn't accommodate?) ...or maybe they have
political motivations - who know... it certainly doesn't mean
anything's wrong.

You might want to consider some other sources of turnover within the
volunteer crew:
- the long-standing inability of certain volunteers to work well with
others (makes finding new volunteers harder too!)
- the inability of certain volunteers to work with or even speak to
certain other volunteers (collaboration be damned)
- the desire of any volunteer to look good, even if it means saying
"...but the rest of SVLUG didn't support me enough!", rather than
looking bad for whatever reason

I could go on... but this is tiring.  Bluntly, particular volunteer
pet peeves and proclivities are larger impediments to progress than
anything I've been able to stir up this past year or so.

>         - it seems you're taking the feedback in a bad way as ooposed
>         - to simply having said, we'll vote warren in on dec 5 meeting

I'm positive I mentioned in at least one message today that the
membership can ratify Warren's appointment, or not, if that's what the
membership wants to do.  I'd never stop something like that - if
people feel they need to vote and approve the appointment, I'm all for
that.

YES, it would have been more politically correct of me to have
appointed Warren "Interim" VP, and then called for a vote... even
though it would have been extra work for me.  I guess I'm gonna do
that extra work anyway, so I might as well get used to the idea.

> some of us arguing with you might look that way to you but we're just trying
> to keep svlug going the right way ... unless someone else states there is
> a more correct way .. better way .. etc.. etc.. and why ...

If I didn't think you all had your hearts in the wrong place, I
wouldn't be bothering with this at all - I'd have simply walked away a
year or more ago.  I know you're among a set of people who feel the
need to guard and protect SVLUG.  I feel similarly... but the "right
way" for SVLUG to proceed is somewhat up in the air right now, don't
you think?
-pbr




More information about the svlug mailing list