[Computerbank] Re: [cai-vic] What happened at the AGM?

[Simeon]

On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 09:24, Daniel Stone wrote:
> As above.
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Stone <dstone at trinity.unimelb.edu.au> -----
> 
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:48:35 +1100
> From: Daniel Stone <dstone at trinity.unimelb.edu.au>
> To: simeon scott <simeonscott at iname.com>
> Cc: romana at timelady.com, computerbank at lists.linux.org.au,
> 	cai-vic at lists.linux.org.au,
> 	"Cb-Private (E-mail)" <cb-private at lists.vicnet.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Computerbank] Re: [cai-vic] What happened at the AGM?
> 
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:01:15AM -0500, simeon scott scrawled:
> > If I was a paid up member I would certainly be complaining, because all I have heard is that during an online AGM half the meeting was conducted 'out of camera' in a forum named #meta-backstabbers.
> > 
> > If you don't think that raises questions, you are deluding yourself.
> 
> What about real AGMs - I'm sure people whisper to each other during
> those. Surely this is highly improper!
> 
> The answer is: who cares? I was not in #meta-backstabbers myself (nor
> was I present at the AGM, for a variety of reasons), and I don't care
> that it exists. People were talking amongst themselves, news at 11. It
> happens all the time. If you think that people discussing issues in
> private is HORRIBLE IMPROPRIETARY, OH THE HUMANITY!, you really need to
> get a grip, and face reaslity.

Well, I think it would be widely considered rude and frowned upon.

I guess in part it depends on the size of the meeting just how rude, but
if technological devices were employed to create a private space for
invited guests only, I think that goes beyond the boundary of rudeness
and into the land of 'irregular'.
 
> > > Your implication I was involved in some sort of voting impropriety are 
> > > personally deeply insulting, and totally unfactual. I particpated in no 
> > > voting not approved of at the time by the parties present, including the 
> > > canditates for president, and as I believed to be part of the Constitution. 
> > 
> > I'm sorry if you feel personally insulted .. as I said at the start of my previous response, my response was not aimed personally at you, I simply had no other information or pathway by which to comment. Certainly one person alone cannot have a meeting, so on those grounds alone if nothing else, my comments were not to single you out.
> 
> Um, Simeon, it was. Just saying that it's not aimed at someone, then
> proceeding to aim it at someone, doesn't make it so.

As I said, Romana's letter is the only vaguelly targettable entry point
to the conversation we are now having. Yes, I could have targetted
no-one, you figure out the response I may have gotten then.

I find it particularly odd that Romana is the only person defending this
'process'. I'm sorry Romana that you seem to be the target, you have
provided the closest things to facts that we have seen on this issue,
and I wanted to address facts.

> ("Hey, nothing personal, not about you, but you're a fucktard!", and
>  getting offended when the person calls you on it).

Did I sound offended? Sorry, I am not. I think my message has been
perhaps misunderstood, perhaps misconstrued.
 
> Your message was *clearly* aimed at Romana.

And then again, clearly explained why it looks that way, and that in
fact it is addressed to the group as a whole who are concerned with the
AGM.
 
> > > I would never have participated in any irregularity if I was aware of it at 
> > > the time.
> > 
> > Is this to say that there were irregularities that you were not aware of at the time? I don't understand what you yourself are now 'implying'.
> 
> She's saying this:
> I don't know that there were any irregularities, and if I knew of any, I
> wouldn't be a part of them, meaning also that I wouldn't be a part of
> them if I didn't know about them, obviously.

Well, I don't think what you say is tenable. How can a person avoid
being a part of something they are not aware that they are a part of?
 
> > > And despite mutterings, noone has made an formal complaint or a 
> > > protest, and I would hope one is either made, or we can move on as an 
> > > organsation.
> > 
> > Well, that's just my problem. I do want to see the organisation move on, but first half of your AGM has been 'offlined' and now the explanation of what occurred has also been carried out seemingly in private.
> 
> As I said, people talk in private sometimes! You may have to get used to
> this. If you want Computerbank to take it further as a group, then make
> a formal complaint. AFAIK, no-one else has so far, meaning there's
> absolutely no reason any of this has to be public, or even revealed to
> you.

AFAIK I cannot make a formal complaint, because I am not and was not at
the time of the AGM a financial member. AFAIC if noone does make a
formal complaint and there is no official response whatsoever to this,
then Computerbank is not a place I want to be involved with, and I would
not encourage others to be involved either.

There are other community programs, other recycling project.
 
> > > Excuse me Simeon, but WTF indeed!
> > 
> > I don't know you or really the organisation and have very little to form an opinion by, I was trying to point out that whatever happened looks very insidious to those of us 'out of the loop'. The whole problem is that you have cut ordinary Computerbank people out.
> 
> Like it or not, people sometimes do things in private, for a variety of
> reasons: they don't want others to hear, they want unimpeded discussion,
> whatever. Would you be just as offended if it was all done in /msg?

Somewhat less 'offended' if that is your word for my concern. At least
in /msg each person is addressed individually. For one thing, the
recipient is not complicit - I would indeed believe and defend Romana if
she was to say, "I was the recipient of /msgs but did not respond, or
responded only to say 'shut up'".

If someone /msgs you to say, 'I told person X this' or 'Person Y thinks
this' or 'Person Z told me to tell you this' - then it is really up to
you to believe them or not. Only a one-on-one communication is
available.

This I would agree fits your analogy of 'whispering'. Whispering in an
AGM is unpreventable, but regrettable. That's 'facing reality'.
 
> I don't care, and I don't see why you should, either. Do you walk up to
> people whispering to themselves at bricks-and-mortar AGMs, and loudly
> demand to know exactly what they're saying? I seriously don't see your
> point, and think you're overreacting. Why, I don't know.

I might tell them to shut. If they seemed to be conspiring, I would
loudly address their impropriety. In this case, it is impossible for
someone to have done that .. or rather it is possible but was not done
by anyone who attended the 'side-meeting'.

Perhaps because nothing scandlous was said, perhaps because all parties
involved in the side-meeting feel complicit? Who knows?
 
> > If the matter has been dealt with by internal discussion, please say so, as a group on record. Not just 'oh - no-one seems to care'. Even if they do not care today, some day someone may look back and say 'WTF?!'
> 
> Then let them look back and say wtf. It was a dysfunctional AGM, people
> spoke among themselves, deal. Most organizations have those.

OK, so if this is the official opinion, then let it be stated in this
forum.

Simeon
 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Stone 	     <daniel at raging.dropbear.id.au>             <dstone at kde.org>
> Developer - http://kopete.kde.org, http://www.kde.org