Jed,
> --did I say it that way? This is an honest question as I didn't see my words
> as saying it that way. I think I know the email you were referring to and I
> tried to make a point to say that I am not using Pittsburgh as an example of
> this. My reference was merely an example of a factor that could lead to
> domain closure. I am not saying that Pittsburgh is actively pursuing this
> option. If I did. I misworded it and I apologize.
I was not referring to the e-mail where you discussed domain closure; in
a later e-mail, you remarked that "two wrongs do not make a right", and
made the comment about "actively going against the rules" being "the
wrong way to handle" the situation. Looking back at it, I can't say for
sure whether or not you intended to say that Pittsburgh was doing such a
thing.
> --Understandable. However, my goal is always to try to lead by example.
> While one officer may break the rules. that does not make it right for the
> rest of us to. People pointing it out in a constructive manner works much
> better. Example, saying "I disagree with your point of view and here is
> why." versus "Your point of view is stupid." Obviously, the first version is
> the better way to word it when dealing with people. Even if the officer
> themselves may have broken the rules. it's better to say it "I believe your
> action is in violation of the rules listed in the MH. (cite where you get
> your information from in the MH)" instead of "You are going against the
> rules." While it might appear that the second version is just a right as the
> first. the first offers citation as well thusly making it more constructive.
> also it comes off as more polite. I'll be honest, I am more apt to deal with
> a more polite person than not. The reason that is is because if someone is
> polite, they are usually more willing to hear another point of view. Angered
> discussion never works well nor ends well because in the end, they usually
> just concede to end the argument and will never see nor accept the other
> person's point of view.
I realize that you're weren't involved with the early parts of this
issue, so you've only seen the period of time where many of us have been
quite angry. We resorted to more overt and vicious criticisms precisely
because the officers in question refused to respond when we attempted to
raise the matter politely.
I don't know if you're aware, but I've kept an archive of related e- mails at http://www.math.cmu.edu/~hpt/DST You'll find a long series of polite requests to Alex. I, and I think everyone in the domain, do appreciate that one catches more flies with honey, but when those officers failed to respond to that in a constructive manner, I think it's understandable that we became angry.
Again, I am not suggesting that in any way justifies breaking the rules or failing to punish such violations; I am only clarifying why it seems a much lesser violation.
> --The best way to handle a problem like this is to utilize the chain of
> command. Fire your concern first to your DC. then Kris will get a hold of me
> with it. If we both agree that this is a problem. then I take it on to Wes.
> Wes and I discuss it and if we both agree it is a problem, we take it on to
> Charles. Obviously, we keep Kris and you involved in the discussion as much
> as possible. What this does is show that you are willing to work within the
> system and your issue is heard much more readily because it shows a
> compliance and understanding of the chain and working with the team instead
> of against it. I'm not saying your action was against the team effort, so
> please don't read it that way. but had I gotten a copy of your email to
> Charles, I might have been able to help you and discuss it with you, making
> your email on up the chain stronger and more likely to be heard. Just be
> careful with over-the-top comments. they tend to cause more damage to your
> case then good. Once you damage your credibility, it is very hard to get
> much of anything accomplished. Make sense?
I agree that utilizing the chain of command would be a desirable way to resolve this problem. You recall my effort to do so; according to my records, Kris passed my e-mail on to you on May 27th. I never received a response from you.
Also, we CC'd on the correspondence regarding my request for mediation with Alex, and his refusal to participate. I suppose I could have sent a second e-mail up the chain of command after that, but I was sufficiently discouraged by the lack of response that I stopped pursuing that direction. It was only after those failures that I became openly critical of some of the officers involved.
If there are methods of achieving resolution I haven't used, I remain open to them, and if you have a suggestion I would love to hear it. However I have tried both suggestions you have made so far, and met with no cooperation with the chain of command.
Henry Towsner
US2003112558