On 9/6/05, US National Coordinator <cam.usnc@...> wrote:
> I can think of a few ways to handle it, but one example would be for
> Jason to have instructed Mike to step away from this particular issue,
> turned Mike's possible CoC violations over to the coordinator chain,
> and taken his concerns about the approval item to the MST via email so
> that it didn't get in the way of getting everything done in the
> database. Maybe stick a note in the database along the lines of "sorry
> folks, nothing to see here, taking my concerns to email, so please
> continue on as normal and ignore the rant behind the curtain."
It is my understanding, as a simple member, that Jason did report Mike
to his CC. It is also my understanding that the conversation did
switch to email, as initiated by the MST. (Not that I see the point
of that, but I'm no expert on DB etiquette, frankly, I don't see the
difference between how the communication is sent.)
As a general member, with the information I have, I don't see how the
actions you suggest are substantially different from the ones that
were taken. From my re-reading of the limited information I do have,
it looks like Alex worked himself in to a tizzy after what could have
been construed as a personal attack from Mike. Did Mike go to far?=20
In my opinion, yes, but Alex over reacted. Escalation breeds
escalation and in this kind of power struggle, the man with the bigger
gun wins. And that was Alex. Some might call it abuse of power,
others might call it... um... keeping the minions in line? I don't
know, I can't think of a way to spin it to make it sound good.
As a constructive counterpoint, here are *my* recommendations for what
*Alex* should have done differently. Upon seeing a gross personal
attack on himself from someone he didn't even know, he should have
taken the high road and looked for common ground to steer the
conversation toward something constructive, rather than flippantly
demanding an apology. When his subordinates (even several levels
lower) questioned his reasoning for a decision, he should have offered
up his reasons or declined in to do so in a professional manner,
rather than shouting down their dissent.
Had discussion been adjusted to a more civil tone, perhaps the
apologies he had been demanding would have been more forthcoming. I'm
not defending what Mike said, it was overly aggressive, but I don't
think the response was any less awful. If you feel differently, I am
certainly open to discussion, as I understand that my knowledge on the
matter is not complete.
- Donald Sheldon
US2002022644