discuss: Staff Election was Re: LDP Committee?
Subject:
Re: Staff Election was Re: LDP Committee?
From:
Martin Wheeler ####@####.####
Date:
8 Mar 2005 16:38:13 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503081506430.5059@chaucer.startext.demon.co.uk>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, G Ferguson / LDP wrote:
> That was never the intent.
I *know* it was never the intent.
But it's the *impression* many casual observers get from briefly trying to
understand what the organisation is all about.
Can you see this?
> The "staff" is clearly listed here,
> along with a description of their current duties:
>
> http://www.tldp.org/vlist.html
But it isn't *stated* that they are 'staff'. It isn't stated
anywhere on that page that these are the only folks allowed to post to the
'staff' list.
On the contrary -- they are presented as the _only_ authors contributing
to the LDP effort -- which of course, we all know is wrong.
(Bad writing, I'm afraid. Flunk the editor of that page.)
What I'm complaining about here is feckless incompetence in presenting the
structure and workings of the organisation; too many loose ends left
unexplained; no coherent overall view; etc. etc.
Is it any wonder that Mathieu talks about a culture of 'insiders', and
asks for a pictorial view in the form of a structural organigram, or a
flowchart to aid in document submission?
(How would *you* feel if I gave you a 250pp manual in Malagasy telling you
how to drop me an e-mail?)
<digression> Err ... and whilst I'm at it, an e-mail in Polish, when all
you want is a CVS account? I have to admit, I abandoned my attempts to
open a CVS account (some years ago now). The whole procedure was just too
surreal. But reading the staff list archives seems to indicate that it's
*still* a problem for some. </digression>
I think Binh expressed it best:
"The only real problem that I have with the current LDP structure is
"that I don't think that its all that obvious what the difference
"between a staff member and a volunteer is.... Most of us contribute
"something. Why aren't we included on the Volunteer list?
and then:
"I just wish it were more obvious who and what people were doing.
Can't you see this?
This is fundamentally what we're all complaining about. (Unclear
explanations. NOT good for a techdoc organisation.)
> The original intent on the formation of the staff mailing
> list (as I recall) was to simply pull out the mundane
> LDP "chores" from the discussion list. Such as:
>
> "serek, can you <do something> to the cvs tree"
Yes; but who decided who did what? Why isn't the purpose and structure of
the staff list explained fully on the website?
It comes over as a very comfy, very cosy, old-boy network which gradually
evolved into a closed shop. I've had this impression for years.
And I know it's prevented me from fully participating on several
occasions, because I've just thought: "Do I *really* want to be part of
this shambolic organisation?" -- and the answer to myself has usually
been: "Oh, give it a miss -- it's not worth the effort."
How many others have been turned off like this over the years?
(I followed the rise and fall of Deb Richardson's OSWG with great
interest.)
> Any policy decisions may have been discussed,
> but only for the intent of preparing a statement or
> proposal to the larger "discuss" list.
But _under what authority_?
Who asked you to decree yourselves responsible to the larger list, and
then abrogate the right to yourselves to block others from the closed
list?
Can't you see just how much that pisses off people like me?
(I had enough of that at University almost half-a-century ago, with the
cliquey literary set; the cliquey drama group set; the cliquey left-wing
political set; the cliquey everything that was supposedly open to
everyone sets.)
> If you want the staff mailing list removed, then it should
> be removed.
I don't want it removed.
I want its composition and purpose to be clearly defined; and open access
to it for everyone -- but most importantly _less of a closed-shop
ambience_ about it.
I don't think this is due to malicious intent. I think it's due to
incompetence.
>>> Probably a popularity contest with the person
>>> with the most votes winning is fine?
>>
>> Suits me.
>
> Isn't this a waste of time/effort?
(Put it to the list, and see. Just *don't* pre-judge for others.)
I don't think so. And neither do others, apparently.
At least it blows away the closed-shop impression.
> Or is there some
> other hidden agenda I'm missing here?
Nope. There's never a hidden agenda with me. It's always very
up-front. I'm now in my mid-sixties and have nothing to gain these days
from blazer-badge politics and back-stabbing in the dark -- I've been
scarred from too many Senior (and Junior) common-room battles to give any
thought to using the LDP to create some sort of CV-enhancing career move.
As you may have noticed, if something gets up my nose, I let everyone know
about it. In no uncertain terms.
> Are you
> not happy with certain individuals?
Nope. (Though I have to admit that since this discussion started, I've
been a little puzzled by Guylhem's absence from the table. He
doesn't seem to be taking his role as Project Leader very seriously. But
then I've learned that that's par for the course within this group; so
no, I can't say I'm unhappy with anyone.
I'm obviously deeply unhappy with the current organisation, though.)
> Please come out and just say it.
Believe me, if I ever want to, I will!
(But isn't it a sad reflection on modern ego-centric society that honest
constructive criticism of anything is first and foremost interpreted as
having to be some sort of attempt at hidden destructive attack on other
individuals -- as if criticism to improve the common good divorced from
personal gain or interest were something strange and puzzling, and not
easily to be understood.)
> Bottom-line: If there are people that want certain
> roles or want to assist in particular tasks, by all
> means step forward! There is enough to
> do to keep everyone busy!
I'd like to believe that.
But that isn't how the staff list works, is it?
Remember?
The self-appointed clique filters out those who don't fit.
*That's* what I'm rejecting.
Now let's put something in place which very clearly demonstrates that that
sort of attitude no longer obtains.
--
Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT / AVALONIX - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
####@####.#### http://www.startext.co.uk/mwheeler/
GPG pub key : 01269BEB 6CAD BFFB DB11 653E B1B7 C62B AC93 0ED8 0126 9BEB
- Share your knowledge. It's a way of achieving immortality. -
