next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Christopher Majka wrote:
> The 'process', Andrew, couldn't be more straightforward. In a community
> organization which emphasizes a team approach and which works on the basis
> of consensus the operative 'process' is to seek input from those who are
> interested/concerned, listen to what they have to say, and take action
> from there. Maybe no one cares or has an idea or opinion: perhaps lots of
> people do. Maybe the process is simple and takes no time at all: perhaps
> it takes a longer time to hammer out an agreement.
>
I have seen no evidence of this democratic process you keep
mentioning. What I do see is you quashing any suggestions made to you in a
mass of bureaucracy and stalling tactics. This is apparently a long
standing tradition here as well and one that needs examining by an
impartial third party or parties. I invite and welcome such scrutiny.
Re: background patterns, I see absolutely no reason why any
innovation in format could not be resolved in a calendar month. People can
build houses in less time. A change could be made as easily as making a
one pixel white graphic and calling it paper.gif. Tests could be made in a
two hour session. Emails can be sent and read in a day.
> I was CCN member 51 and became active in the organization in 1993. This
> team approach and consensus method of working has characterized every
> aspect of the CCN since day 1. Its surprising how well listening to people
> actually works and how much one can accomplish.
>
I joined two years ago and learned HTML on my own from scratch
here. I bought and build computers working from a standing start six
months after that. I believe that if something needs doing, then it should
get done. This net needs to grow and adapt in order to survive and thrive.
Volunteers must be cultivated and must be encouraged to work their way
through the ranks. We should welcome innovation and growth. Your approach
(or is it your collective's? Who can tell what a Star Chamber does?) is
the exact opposite of what it ought to be.
> I'd should emphasize that it's not 'my' paper.gif (if memory serves me
> correctly it was actually David Trueman who found this particular GIF).
> It's the CCN's paper.gif and the collective who selected and tested it
> includes Ben Armstrong, Carlos Freitas, David Trueman, Gerard McNeil,
> Peter Henry, David Murdoch, David Trueman, Wayne Groszko,
> , David Potter, Joan Armstrong and several others.
This is at odds with other accounts on the subject.
Clearly there is a conflict here that should be mediated. There is
no point whatsoever to filling several mailing lists with debate when that
is what committee meetings are for. I look forward to my invitation to the
next Editor's meeting where I can witness the collective in action
firsthand and of course I already attend ccn-comm, ccn-ip and ccn-board
meetings. Any further mail spanning multiple lists is being childish.
I've made my points, you've made your points. We will resolve this
realtime in the committee meetings.
Cheers!
Andrew
---------------------- -----------------------------------------
Editor, CCN Beacon "The future is already here - it's just
CCN Userhelp Volunteer not very well distributed yet."
<*> - William Gibson
My Eclectic Resources: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~au141/Profile.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects