[ADMIN] [ANNOUNCE] This list - CC date correction

Samuel Thurston sam.thurston at gmail.com
Wed Apr 20 02:40:53 UTC 2011


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> On 04/19/2011 10:14 PM, Samuel Thurston wrote:
>>
>> In case it was unclear what I meant by underhanded and deceitful, I
>> repost this message for your perusal.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Alan Pope<alan at popey.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11 April 2011 22:26, Samuel Thurston<sam.thurston at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alan, Checking back on the wiki page no time is yet listed for this
>>>> item on the community council agenda.  If I read this page correctly,
>>>> if the item is indeed bumped to 21:00 UTC, then it will be discussed
>>>> at the meeting May 3 instead of April 19.. is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> Please clarify.
>>>>
>>> That's right. Yes.
>>>
>>> There's been a lot of feedback since the original proposal, and I'm
>>> happy to collate that and present it objectively at either meeting.
>>> It's often difficult to get the entire CC to meetings, so sometimes
>>> there's not enough to make a decision there and then. But it's worth
>>> discussing. It's not a foregone conclusion as some have suggested, and
>>> the fact that I raised it and I'm on the CC doesn't really make any
>>> difference, if anyone had added it to the agenda it would have been
>>> considered the same way.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Al.
>>
>> Cheers indeed.  Be careful Alan, your other face is showing.
>>
>> And lest you feel like I am personalizing this, I would be just as
>> pissed at anyone else who had added it to the agenda and then lied to
>> me about it as I am at you.
>>
> I find it amazing that anyone would expect a mailing list to be successful
> unmoderated.  To fail to manage a list and then shut it down because of a
> failure to manage, demonstrates a toal lack of thought on somebodies part.
> You people have failed in your job.  There are people right here on this
> list that can moderate and manage this list in a proper and fair manner.
> This list can then be a supplier of input of value.
>   Doug


What's really amazing Douglas, is that by and large this list HAS been
a net supplier of "input of value" in the absence of moderation!  The
list's failure is one of not meeting an arbitrary and unstated set of
goals.  That's tough to accomplish even with moderation in place.



More information about the sounder mailing list