[volunteers] The 2230 formerly (and presently) known as brie

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Dec 18 15:44:37 PST 2007

Quoting Edward Cherlin (echerlin at gmail.com):

> *I* suggest that you butt out and let the idiots get on with their
> idiocy, if that's how you see it.

I could do that, especially if I decided I didn't care about SVLUG
making (more) strategic mistakes.

> Or confine your remarks to bare facts.

I could do that.  For example, when Heather proposed to route all domain
contact e-mail addresses for svlug.{org|net} through a single MTA at
starshine.org (still the current situation, though change has been
discussed), I briefly pointed out (here) that doing so introduced an
avoidable single point of failure, as we'd discussed countless times
before, but that since she was doing the implementation, I guess she
would be doing it her way despite the risk.

That would be a good example of "confining my remarks to bare facts",
and not commenting on the salient point, that a single point of failure
is a bad mistake where critical communications are concerned, and could,
e.g., cause us to receive no renewal notices.

So, presumably, that's what you'd like me to do:  No pointedly drawing
people's attention to implications, no lessons drawn from my long
experience in some areas, professional and otherwise -- just a
recitation of facts.

I don't know if you remember what happened, but let me please remind
you:  (1)  Predictably, the MTA config got screwed up, we got zero
renewal notices, and we would have lost the svlug.org domain completely
except for the fact that I had backstopped the group, monitored the
expiration date, and paid for the renewal myself.  (2) Heather's
comment was "it was what had been needed at a time in the past, to get
everything transited in a hurry, and you and JP both gave the nod at the
time."  (See: http://lists.svlug.org/archives/volunteers/2007q3/000358.html)

So, my saying it was an avoidable single point of failure and something
she could insist on if she wished against my advice became "giving the
nod" to the (bad) idea that nearly cost us our domain.  I see.

In general, I've noticed that stating facts and letting people draw
obvious conclusions doesn't always work very well, and I get more
mileage out of saying "I think that's a {good|bad} idea, and here's


More information about the volunteers mailing list