[Volunteers] "As an anti-spam measure"?

J. Paul Reed preed at svlug.org
Mon Jul 18 15:32:46 PDT 2005


On 18 Jul 2005 at 13:21:11, Rick Moen arranged the bits on my disk to say:

> Quoting J. Paul Reed (preed at svlug.org):
> 
> > Because there is no reasonable justification to provide that information to
> > the public, including any subscribers.
> 
> Well, I'll give you one:  Subscribers, quite simply, often want to see
> who else is on the mailing list.  This is a perfectly normal and ordinary
> function on LUG mailing lists.  Why the hell would anyone want to prevent
> this?

Why do subscribers need to see who else in on a mailing list? Seriously.

I'm willing to entertain the discussion (not here, at the dinner tomorrow)
about why someone needs to know who else is on a public,
higher-profile-than-most LUG mailing list. 

I have not heard a good argument, and disallowing such is *very* clearly
spam prevention.

> > It's not relevant to anyone who's on our mailing lists. So it's not a
> > decision I even want to have to make people make.
> 
> And this, folks, is the exact sort of thing we call being a control freak
> -- sort of like how you and Bill W. blew off my question about where to
> get a copy of the web-team back-posts archive when you nuked that mailing
> list, and instead asked me to justify why I "needed" it.

Rick: go find where I blew off your concerns of the web archive.

I'd love to see what I said on the matter.

Send them to me privately and directly.

> > > Well, that's entirely your privilege -- but then you shouldn't act
> > > surprised when you notice less participation by other volunteers, after
> > > having maked a concerted effort, in a number of areas, to cut everyone
> > > but yourself and Bill W. out of the loop.  Thus my point -- of which
> > > Mailman admin is just one example.
> > 
> > This is a downright mischaracterization, Rick.
> 
> What, you need examples?  _Still_?

If you'd like to provide them, send them in private email.

> > Bill W. and I *have* centralized SVLUG precisely because when we took the
> > reins, the organization was unfocused and (in my opinion) not as effective
> > as it could be.
> > 
> > You imply that "centralization" is a bad thing, but I think a number of
> > people would disagree with you about actions that were a result of such
> > "centralization," such as the volunteers mailing list.
> 
> I'm not "implying that it's a bad thing", so much as pointing out the
> inherent contradiction between bemoaning the fading away of volunteers
> and also redirecting pretty nearly everything we do to run through just 
> the two of you.

Bill and I lead differently than others in the past did.

Get over it.

> > If you don't like the trend of "centralization" as you believe you see it,
> > then you're welcome to not contribute as a volunteer. 
> 
> Wow, do you really want to reduce the number of participants to just you
> two plus yes-men who never tell you anything you don't enjoy hearing?

No. But there's a distinct difference between someone who offers their
feedback, confirms that said feedback was understood, and LET'S OTHERS DO
THEIR JOBS vs. someone who brings up every little point where they were
disagreed with in the past in every email with multiple footnotes until the
end of time.

I think everyone, myself especially, has done a good job of listening to
your input and implementing it when it makes sense for the group, based
upon a "big picture" outlook of the organization and its needs. I, in fact,
value your input and your work, Rick.

But just because I don't immediately hop to and implement your suggestions
(or just because I happen to disagree with them, and decide to not
implement them at all!) does NOT mean I'm not listening to you.

You're confusing the two.
 
> > You need to become comfortable with the fact that not *every* volunteer is
> > going to be consulted on *every single* decision that is *ever* made.
> > 
> > Such an expectation is unreasonable.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, I said no such thing.  Why are you suddenly
> supposing that I did?

Because you're making a huge deal out of the fact that some decisions were
made that your opinion wasn't asked for. There are going to be *more*
decisions that are made, that we're not going to consult you on. We may
consult others. Or we may consult each other and the SBAY leadership. (I
don't think we've ever made a decision that was completely unilateral.)

Your constant needling about decisions that were made where others (namely
you) weren't consulted implies that you think you need to be consulted for
every decision that this organization makes. If you didn't intend that
implication, then you need to stop making reference to them in every email
you send.

> > But the fact of the matter is you're the only volunteer I'm hearing
> > these concerns from.
> 
> Heather has, also.
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/private/volunteers/2005-July/000274.html

>From a quick skim of the email, those concerns seem to be focused around
mailing list policy; I've decided I want to discuss this not-over-email,
which is why I didn't get involved at that point. Bill did respond to some
of her concerns, in what looked to be a useful way (the final set of list
policies is coming together nicely, I think).
 
> And I hadn't heard that reality was suddenly to be discerned by majority
> vote.

Perception != reality.

If you want an exacting statement, I have not heard these concerns about
the perceived move towards centralization, tending to unilateralism from
any other volunteer.

> > We've all heard them repeated a number of times now, and so
> > you can consider your point heard.
> 
> And ignored.  OK.

If you want to view it that way, you are welcome to your opinion.

But I think you're going to find that there are a lot of people in
this world whom you think are ignoring you, when they merely disagree with
you.

I've said my peice, Rick, so if you want to continue this conversation,
email me offline.

I'm done with this thread.

If other volunteers have concerns of this nature, email me privately and
we'll discuss them. We can also reserve (a limited!) amount of time to
discuss concerns of this nature at the Volunteers dinner tomorrow.

If there really is this much unhappiness with how Bill and I lead this
group, then we obviously have a legitimate problem to discuss (and it can
fall under the "How can SVLUG make your life as a volunteer
better?"-umbrella).

Later,
Paul
--
President
Silicon Valley Linux Users' Group
preed at svlug.org




More information about the volunteers mailing list