rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Jan 25 01:59:48 PST 2008
Edward Cherlin wrote:
> Let's get this aired out.
If you say so. However, since you're making claims about me in public,
I do request accuracy.
(I know you've more recently retroactively attempted to un-say what you
posted earlier today, but that unfortunately has left some inaccurate
impressions on the membership, which you seem to want me to ignore, even
though they were at my personal expense. In a word: No.)
> Rick has made it fairly clear that he does not regard me and Lisa as
> officers by Paul's appointment.
Wow, this sure makes me seem like I was somehow standing in your way.
However, I was not. To set the record straight:
o You requested me to do a rather _huge_ amount of writing work,
requesting that I post it here, and saying that you were making
that request as president.
o I replied that I would happily comply, _but_ that I would gladly
do the same for any SVLUG member -- including Alvin and Bruce, the
other (so far) declared candidates.
o On the Volunteers list, I made my point a little clearer, in case
it had somehow been lost. I said:
I'm just picturing Bruce, Alvin, or some other candidate
asking me why I unilaterally ignored their candidacies, and
realised I have no good answer. If that seems highhanded
for any reason, imagine your and Bruce's situations to be
reversed, and reconsider.
I have to wonder: _Did_ you imagine what it was like if Bruce had
asked me to disregard your candidacy? _Did_ you reconsider the ethical
dilemma you were trying to land me in?
So, to sum:
1. I said "yes" to your request, even though it was going to chew up
a sh**load of my time, and even though some of your questions were
going to take a lot _additional_ time in prefactory explanation of
why you're questions had some wrong questions about how (e.g.)
Mailman works that I'd have to clarify before answering the
question you probably _meant_ to ask.
2. Despite my saying "yes", and saying I'd do the same for
_any SVLUG member_, and just was trying to behave fairly and
impartially towards all candidates including (in particular)
you, so that I could _not_ be fairly accused of trying to run
SVLUG.... despite all that, you tell the membership I was
somehow standing in your way.
I'm non-plussed. Should I have told you "no"? If neither "yes" nor
"no" was OK, should I have gone with "mu"?
Please elucidate, Ed. I need help, here.
And, by the way, _thank you_, Alvin, for your response to Ed on this
point. Exactly, sir. I couldn't have put it better.
More information about the svlug