next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects There are a significant number of issues in disput here but I'm going to return to ground of which I am very sure... that "The recent changes to the IP registration process were arbitrary and flawed in process, they reflect questionable technical judgement, and evidence a lack of regard and consideration for other stakeholders." Suggestions that I was part of discussions relating to this change are an utter fabrication. To suggest that I happened to miss the meeting in which these changes were discussed and thus in some way disinfranchised myself raises the spectre of manipulation of information and process. THE ACID TEST OF A PROCESS INTENDED TO BUILD CONCENSUS IS THAT IT DOES! There is NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE of consensus on the part of the IP and technical committees with the decision to start allocating filespace for organizations under the home/ file system. The technical implications of this type of action demand a detailed technical review PRIOR to such changes. These decisions have been undertaken by individuals who do not posess sufficient technical expertice with CCN systems to appreciate the complexity and implications with respect to our systems. They obviously do not understand that we pool our technical knowledge and approach challenges from the strongest techncial position. They effectively have become individuals making decisions about matters they are not qualified to decide... a singularly undesirable management model. The suggestion that, suddenly by decree, we no longer have Information Providers, and that previous administration issues are suddenly, no longer our problem reflects a disregard for our user/clients, represents linguistic sleight of hand, and misrepresents the actual relationship between these organizations and CCN. The 'detailed' rebutals that has been offered to Chris Majka's observations are full of half-truths, ignorance about the existance/value of tools at hand, mistaken assumptions, and statements that appear designed to gloss over a serious break with the traditions of CCN. They further evidence a complete disregard for the experience of volunteers in these areas. To continue down this road is a sure opportunity for the board to see if the organizaiton can operate without volunteers. The recent changes in registration procedure went ahead without a specific request for changes/improvements to the administrative tools. THIS IS A STRONG INDICATION THAT THE ACTUAL ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENT HAD NOT EVEN BEEN DETERMINED. This clearly suggests action was undertaken before the process was complete and further highlights the degree to which these decisions have been made in a vacuum. The individuals (volunters) who have had the most contact with CCN Information Providers have been marginalized in these events in what appears to be a dream of controlling the entire organization from the office. To find the co-chair of the Volunteer Committee a central figure in this uglyness is a clear indication of his singular unsuitability for that role. david potter
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects