[wplug] NOTICE: Member Organizational Meeting

[jmh3 at linuxfreak.com]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 squeegy+wplug at squeegy.org wrote:

> This guy (David Tessitor) has single handedly kept me from even
> bothering to read my wplug mail anymore.  I read this message by
> accident.  I can't believe that this guy is still causing trouble
> here.  Ban his useless ass and lets move on.  We have thrown other
> trouble makers out of our group before.
i dont think that silencing people who do not agree with you is the wrong
method. it kind of defeats the purpose of having a public mailing list.

i really dont know much about david tessitor, but i think he should be
able to have his opinions and express them. if you dont want to recieve
his email you can probably setup a filter or something. 



john
> 
> >
> > > SOME  COMMENTS  for those who care about WPLUG:
> > >
> > > Of course, there is nothing wrong with this, however, having
> > > the opportunity available for everyone to enjoy depends upon
> > > that somebody and someone who happen to do the work.
> >
> > Why do you say "there is nothing wrong with this" when you obviously think
> > there is?
> >
> > > While many "members" are perfectly content with everything
> >
> > I am very unhappy with your choice to put the word 'members' in
> > double-quotes.  Name names, rather than hinting.  There is no evil upper
> > hierachy keeping you from doing anything.  You may like to represent it
> > that way, but it's more like this: People willing to do things do
> > things.
> >
> > > remaining just as it has been, the group's openness has
> > > attracted people whose perspective of Linux isn't steeped in
> > > their day to day professional lives.  Some of these people
> > > would like WPLUG to offer more than it currently does, and
> > > they have expressed a willingness to put in the necessary
> > > effort to make it happen.  Unfortunately, while comfortable to
> > > some, WPLUG's structurelessness renders impossible these
> > > ambitions.
> >
> > You chose the word "impossible", which is a very strong word.  Are they
> > subscribed to the list?  Can they not post?  Can they come to meetings and
> > talk to members?  You seem to equate a structure of governing with the
> > ability to get things done.  I need not explain how wrong this is, but
> > just give two examples.  The US senate.  Open Source Programming.
> >
> > >                  Furthermore, whether overt or covert, an
> > > insistence upon continuing the present arrangements (with, at
> > > most, superficial adjustments) effectively forbids any efforts
> > > to try to do more.
> >
> > I really don't see how you can get about making these wild accusations
> > without sounding paranoid and being argumentative.
> >
> > > What is missing is effective organization and that begins with
> > > structure.  Organizational structure is the skeleton of any
> > > organization.  It doesn't matter how much muscle, energy,
> > > talent, and desire there may be to do anything, without a
> > > skeleton upon which to function, an organism is reduced to
> > > being, at best, a pulsating blob on the floor. -- In the
> > > biological sphere, slugs, slimemold, protoplasms, jellyfish,
> > > and worms represent about the highest level of life forms
> > > which one can find without solid structures.  In an
> > > organizational context, unstructured counterparts range from
> > > the occasional, spontaneous mob action down to simple
> > > get-togethers which may or may not be somewhat regularized.
> >
> > I see you are comparing organizations to the biological structure in
> > life.  May I remind you that while bacteria, molds and nematodes may lack
> > stucture, they are the also the fastest to evolve and adapt to new
> > situations, because they aren't overburdened by maintaining the structure
> > you so highly value.  Also, if you looked at the total biomass of such
> > creatures on the earth, you'd find that the majority of biomass is made up
> > of very simple organisms, lacking very much structure at all.
> >
> > But I am most impressed by your choice to include slime molds.  I think
> > that our group is very well described by this simple organism.  You see,
> > slime molds usually live out their life as a blob of undifferentiated
> > cells.  But, when it comes to reproduce, it *becomes* a structured
> > organization, some cells becoming rigid stalks, some becoming protective
> > shells, and some creating spores to fire off to some new area to
> > explore.  WPLUG's behavior mirrors this.  We all work independantly, but
> > when it comes time that we need to decide on a new project, we can all
> > choose roles that will let us work toward that new project.  We are not
> > burdened by that useless structure until it is necessary.
> >
> > > As we begin the new year-century-millennium, I look forward to
> > > working with you as a fellow WPLUG member to realize our best
> > > potential.  I hope to see you at February's 2pm Member
> > > Organizational Meeting.
> >
> > I would also appreciate if people actually went to the meetings, where
> > they could experience what WPLUG is *REALLY* about.  While DT might have
> > good ideas for what WPLUG could be, I think he really doesn't care about
> > what WPLUG is about.  He doesn't go to meetings.  He doesn't know much
> > about what linux is.  He doesn't understand the open source movement.  It
> > seems his knowledge of political matters is quite expansive, but I doubt
> > that his desires to 'improve' wplug does not lie in promoting linux, but
> > only toward his own political agendas.
> >
> >
> > -- jonathan "No Nickname" billings
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wplug mailing list
> > wplug at wplug.org
> > http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> ___________________
> 
> Jt "The Squeegy" Chiodi
> 
> http://www.squeegy.org/
> squeegy at squeegy.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wplug mailing list
> wplug at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>