Subject:
Re: LDP Committee?
From:
Guylhem Aznar ####@####.####
Date:
9 Mar 2005 15:05:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20050309150513.GC24865@externe.net>
On Monday, 7 March 2005 at 13:21:57 (+0000), Martin Wheeler wrote:
> Sorry, Guylhem -- that's nowhere near good enough.
> In fact, it's so damn' pathetic, that I hereby formally request of this
> community -- and you, as its unelected group leader -- that a list be
> published, illico, of those people who are currently members of the staff
> list; an explanation of how they came to be members of the staff list;
> and a description of the formal procedures by which any member of this
> voluntary community may themselves become a member of the 'staff' list.
> Also, a full description of the duties and powers of the LDP 'group
> leader'; how one becomes 'group leader'; and what this person's
> resonsibilities are. (Because nowhere is this information publicly
> detailed; and it's becoming a festering canker which is preventing the
> group from functioning at full efficiency.)
In 2 letters: no.
I will not waste my days to do something which has no interest of any
kind to anybody inside and outside TLDP. It may seems like a game to
you, it's not for me.
> And if you're not prepared to do this, I hereby formally propose to this
> community that the so-called 'staff' list be discontinued and disbanded;
> that the position and role of group leader be put under scrutiny as to
> effectiveness and desirability; and that a now long-overdue and total
> re-organisation of the structure and modus operandi of the whole LDP be
> undertaken immediately.
From how on, I'm speaking in my own name - not in TLDP name.
Get a life. Taking care of the organisation is more a burden than
anything else. It eats time and money, and produce nothing visible -
not even documents unlike authors. It's the same bureaucracy I hate
that we take care of!
> >Regarding how one becomes staff, if there is some special need and/or
> >someone who appears to be doing good thinks for TLDP, this person is
> >invited unless someone from the staff has a good reason to say no.
>
> That's even worse.
> So you are telling me that the LDP is run by a bunch of self-appointed
> cronies who decide who is to become part of their cabal according to
> whether the cut of their jib fits or not?
Correction - not "run" but "barely run". Even this way ie. actively
demarching people who seems to have some good motivation and technical
knowledge, there's not enough people to do everything we should.
> No way.
> Sorry, Guylhem -- this has GOT to change.
> It's undemocratic; ad hoc -- and wide open to accusations of abuse.
Certainly. I proposed changes - they could not be implemented due to
lack of volunteers. If you feel like creating the non profit
organisation etc etc. to transition to a democratic process, you're
more than welcome to do so.
The irony is that will certainly make you part of the so-colled cabal - the
staff - because you will do something good for TLDP.
Meanwhile you are just bitching and wasting everybody's time.
> I've had enough. And I'm sure many others on the list feel the same way.
Yes?
> >Limited. We only take decisions when we think we may need to "impose"
> >something for the common good. We haven't been doing that for long.
>
> With what authority?
> Vested in you by whom?
> Who decides the common good? A bunch of self-appointed so-called
> 'representatives'?
> (It must be obvious that you don't represent any philosophy of mine.)
I certainly don't. You seems totaly socialist to me.
Please no personal attack, or I will be happy to retaliate :-)
> Let me quite clear on this -- I consider myself a part of the LDP (even
> though I'm no longer actively maintaining any documents); and I would
> participate even more actively in the workings of the group if I felt more
> comfortable with the way it is organised and run.
> I obviously don't feel comfortable at all.
Then do something and change it.
> Now can we please have some honest comment and facts; and less of the
> "There, there, Nanny knows best" old-boy network attitude, brushing off of
> uncomfortable questions and ignoring things and hoping they'll go away.
> They won't.
Change that. It's a god-honest proposition - work on something that
may help TLDP.
> But all we've got at the moment is this mailing list.
> So let's use it, shall we?
No. I'd rather not "use" the list too much since this:
- waste time
- produce nothing good.
Many many people tried to create something for TLDP - I asked them on
an on, but nothing happened. Paul Jones' lawyer, Ismael, etc. I even
did try myself. We all failed.
IMHO this is because it would require too much energy, too much money
and too much time for very little public good. Our priority should be
helping people, not feeling morally confortable because of our new
shiny great "organisation" which by itself would be useless.
So for the moment it stays the way it is. Changes are ok if it can be
demonstrated they will be in the public good (we shall all vote then,
at least that's my position).
Meanwhile the current situation is better than nothing or something
that could lead to an hostile takeover of the IP for the documents we
have.
--
Bien à vous - Best regards,
Guylhem P. Aznar
--
####@####.#### http://externe.net
Périmé/Deprecated: @oeil.qc.ca, @metalab.unc.edu, @ibiblio.org, @7un.org
GPG: 92EB37C1 DD11C9C9 20519D01 E8FA1B11 42975AF7 http://externe.net/pubkey
