[Volunteers] Undisclosed banned discussion topics (was: yum extender)

William R Ward bill at svlug.org
Tue Jul 12 10:00:01 PDT 2005


J. Paul Reed writes:
>On 12 Jul 2005 at 00:25:30, William R Ward arranged the bits on my disk to say:
>> I'll let Paul comment on the idea of elected vs. appointed officers.
>> I think that there may be a mismatch of vocabulary that we should be
>> able to resolve.
>> 
>> Please note that Paul is the President of SVLUG and the final word on
>> policy.  I may be a "hearbeat away" but I try not to set policy.  Paul
>> has given me some discretion in the area of mailing list administration
>> but that is all.
>
>The term "officer" implies some duties and privileges that I'm not willing
>to give to others outside the structure defined for us by SBAY.org. I don't
>know the history, but unless we have a charter that allows "appointed
>officers," we're not going to be doing that, for all the questions and
>issues that Bill raises below.

In other words, there is a difference of opinion between Paul and Rick
about what the word "officer" means...  Paul, what do you call people
like Rick who perform a specific task for SVLUG (i.e. webmastering)
but are not officers?

>Having said that, I think it's clear, Rick, that you do a lot of the
>webmaster work (and we're all very appreciative). Chris, similarly, has
>been a "right hand man" for the LUG. If you'd like to give official titles
>to those positions, then I'm up for discussing it. I do think giving people
>a title reflective of their contributions is an important thing (and for a
>bit of history, I got started in LUGs in general way back when as the NCLUG
>"Slackey" :-)
>
>Let's talk about at next week's dinner; I will again be bringing up "How
>can SVLUG make your life, as a volunteer better?" Let's discuss then.

I think we should have a name for such people, whether it be "officer"
or "appointed officer" or something else, who have specific jobs but
are not elected.  For example, Rick's Webmastering, or Bill K.'s
Speakergetting.  That puts them in a category above merely "volunteer"
and they should be recognized as such.

>> >I'm sure you didn't intend to do that, but it's been sort of a running
>> >pattern.  Suddenly restricting the term "officers", against all prior
>> >SVLUG practice, to just yourselves is just one example.
>
>The reason we did that (and did so with the mailing list) is because we
>have a bit of a defined organizational structure that we didn't have
>before. Therefore, our own organizational behavior needs to reflect that
>structure.

I think the structure should extend to recognizing the contributions
of those whom Rick is calling "appointed officers" in some way.

Quaere: How does the sbay.org constitution address the issue of SIG's
having appointed officers?

>> >Let me remind you of my perspective:  On at least two occasions (the two
>> >I cited), you (in my view) maligned me personally, in error, in public
>> >on svlug@ , and then immediately either "killed the thread" (forbade me
>> >or anyone else from commenting) or ordered me to move any commentary to
>> >a small, totally private forum, access to which is controlled by you and
>> >Paul Reed.
>
>On "killing the thread" and telling people to take it to volunteers@, I am
>100% in favor of this, and I have not seen a situation where Bill has made
>that call that I would've disagreed with him.

Thank you.

>I do want to clarify that volunteers@ IS NOT a private forum, and it is not
>controlled by Bill and I.  Anyone is able to join at any time, and archives
>are available to members.  That may not be your definition of "public,"
>Rick, but we can agree to disagree on it. *IF I AM WRONG* and the Mailman
>config is set up incorrectly, then we need to fix that. Anyone should be
>able to join the volunteers list at any time, period.

As posted separately, I verified that the Mailman config is and has
been correct for it to be open to anyone who wants to join.

>And the volunteers list is a MUCH better place to have this sort of
>discussion. I wish it would've moved here two or three emails earlier.
>
>[ Discussion of list policy cut; could someone print this out, so we can
>discuss it at our Volunteers meeting. It looks like we've got four major
>areas to discuss: mailing list, website, picnix, and "other" ]

Is someone designated to act as "secretary" for such meetings?  Bill
K. did it the last time, but unless he wants to volunteer to do it on
an ongoing basis we shouldn't force him to...

--Bill.

-- 
William R. Ward - Vice President, Silicon Valley Linux Users Group
bill at svlug.org - http://www.svlug.org - (650) 279-9904




More information about the volunteers mailing list