[NBLUG/talk] apology: was Go fuck yourself, Egan

[ME]

Ron Wickersham said:
> pls reread my msg.  i made no such assumption, you are imagining my
> assumption.
> and i made no accusation nor inferred one.

Sorry about this. I guess I assumed that since you stated that the message
I sent to the list should have been private, that this inferred no prior
attempt at keeping things private was attempted. (I have dealt with
messages containing covert channel communication so long that I sometimes
see messages that are not there. This is a mistake on my part and I am
sorry that I categoized your original message as being like this.)

As for addressing the list, I thought about this method, but to talk to
the list about what has been happening seemed a bit passive-aggressive to
me and I wanted to be direct as he had previously responded best to direct
statements to him as a person (not about him.) It is a difficult decision
but more of a style.

> however you have added information in this post that explains your
> frustration
> level.  fwiw i was also frustrated by the OT postings and the demeanor of
> the
> author, and considered leaving the list as it had drifted beyond my
> interest
> and availaible time to follow.

This dislike of the off topic content drove some to complain in private,
but many members won't complain, but instead just unsubscribe. I prefer
notification of problems so solutions can be found. However, leaving the
list with no notice is another way to convey discontent and that played a
part in the decisions that were made.

> i responded to a msg that started name calling, and didn't want to see
> ganging
> up which i have observed several times on lists/usenet.  my purpose was an
> attempt to mend a situation, but my msg was a clumbsy failure, and clearly
> the situation had blown up further before my msg was sent.  however sad it
> is that some situations can't be amicably resolved, the fact is that this
> is an example of one.

For what it is worth, I am not angry with him. I am frustrated, but not
angry. Most people (everyone?) on the list would generally react favorably
to being told their actions were inconsistent with the direction of the
list. I expect this is because most/all of the list members Are
reasonable.

(As an example, You can see I have no problem replying to a subject that
offers such comment as those listed above and I dont even bother to alter
the subject.)

> i appreciate that my opinion matters to you or you wouldn't have taken the
> time to make a thoughful response.  i reread your first msg and the second
> time thru the effort you made to be conciliatory impressed me more than on
> my first scan thru.  my emotions were raised by the response of the person
> to whom that msg was addressed and by the post following it, and my dashed
> off response shows that i shouldn't consider a board position.  i owe you
> an
> apology for not rereading your msg before reacting.  serving in your
> position
> should not be a no-win, and i apologize for making the situation harder on
> you.

Thanks. I am serious on the point of running for the board. One of the
nice things about constructive criticism, is it shows there is desire to
make things better. When people take the time to address something they
see as a problem, it shows they are likely to want to contribute in other
ways. The suggestions for you to run for office was and is a genuine one.
I see (saw) your comment as an opportunity to try to enlist you to help
NBLUG.

I'm also serious about not running in September. I decided that a long
time ago. Fall semester will be starting, and I will need to devite time
to school.

Yes, I do value your opinion as well as everyone else's on this list. I
asked you how you would do things differently because there is almost
always a method to solving a problem that is better than what is tried.

> you ask how could it be handled differently.  what bothers me anytime a
> directed message is posted publicly is that i'm put in the situation of
> overhearing communication not intended for me, and this makes me feel
> uneasy.

At that point, I wanted others to overhear the message to know that
actions were being taken to address their complaint, since previous
private communications offered little effective change.

> should a situation come up in the future, my suggestion is to address the
> list as you would in a meeting, since the list is really the intended
> audience, and the policy issue or whatever the content of the message
> serves as notice to the entire list community rather than one individual.

In a meeting, I often talk to the group about a subject.

I want to better understand this, as it appears to be this:
(We can continue this off list if you wish.)
1) Send a reply to him, being direct explaining that behavior is not
acceptable.
2) Explain to the list the background and reasoning for having him removed
from the list.

I have a question for the second part though. Would discussion of
previously private communications on a public list be acceptable?

I may not be getting the idea you are trying to convey. Are you suggesting
instead that the first message I sent to him about acting on NBLUG should
have been to the list?

Here is another take on what I think you were saying:
There is merit in making everything public from the beginning. Such an
approach permits a list to see what behavior is acceptable. The one
problem with this (based on experience in dealing with people on lists) is
that ego can get in the way when someone is told in public that their
action are not acceptable.
Often,, when done in public, the item for resolution is not actually
resolved, but instead the person "reacts" to the a comment as a personal 
attack when made in public. However, when made in private, there is no ego
(or less ego) and the person does not need to worry about their image. On
other lists, I find I get more respect from my peers when I take the time
to contact them in private to correct them on a technical point that is
very seriously incorrect or action that seemed improper. Then, they will
often go ack, reply to their own post and correct it or apologize. Rightly
or not, this seems most effective on the intellectuals and people who
spend time learning a lot about a topic better than people who demand
service.

> i had to think for considerable time to offer a suggestion, so it is not
> so obvious that i think you should have handled the present situation
> differently.

Thanks again. Sorry I misunderstood your message.

-ME