[Volunteers] Undisclosed banned discussion topics (was: yum extender)
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jul 14 17:02:16 PDT 2005
Quoting William R Ward (bill at svlug.org):
> 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?
Certainly, Paul is empowered to redefine the terms SVLUG uses and discard
(if he wishes) our old meanings of same. I just wanted to point out
that you two guys _have_ in fact redefined this one -- without
discussion or consultation of anyone else. (Not that change isn't often
good, but I'll mention again that it's part of the pattern of you two
having lunch and then rearranging things without consulting or informing
anyone else, like the night in late March when I suddenly discovered
that my web-team mailing listadmin password didn't work, that the list
seemed to be suddenly missing, and I had to figure out why, for myself.)
> I think the structure should extend to recognizing the contributions
> of those whom Rick is calling "appointed officers" in some way.
Whom _I'm_ calling that?
Um, Bill? If you for some reason are choosing to disbelieve me, that
SVLUG has had appointive officers for a dog's age, then you need only
ask Don Marti. Or Marc Merlin. Or Ben Spade. Or Rob Walker. Or Dan
> Quaere: How does the sbay.org constitution address the issue of SIG's
> having appointed officers?
Um, Bill? As I've mentioned to you before, a key precondition of SVLUG
affiliating with sbay.org was that sbay was not to intrude on SVLUG's
internal affairs. No matter who (I notice) suddenly turns out to own
our domain name.
More information about the volunteers