8/12/05

Back

--- Henry Towsner wrote:
> 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.
Ahhh I see what you mean. I wasn't trying to say that Pittsburgh was actively going against the rules there. What I meant by "two wrongs don't make a right" was that if one officer does something that violates the rules, it doesn't mean to say they have a fragile ego or anything. That is what I meant there. In that, there was an example on this list about that. That was what I meant there.

The wrong way to handle the situation - What I meant there was, I have seen Pittsburgh (or at least some from Pittsburgh) very vocal and sometimes, while maybe not intentionally meaning to do so, come off as rude in email. What I mean here is this... the right way to handle a decision you disagree with is to appeal it or ask how you can appeal if there is a way. The wrong way would be to openly attack on a list. Again, not saying the whole domain has done this, but I have seen posts that were... not polite in appearance. I'm not blaming the domain as a whole, not at all, but I would ask people to take a second to look at what you post before you do. :)

>
> > --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.

This is what I meant by two wrongs don't make a right. Criticism is acceptable, just keep it constructive. Be truthful, but try not to be vicious if possible. Many people can take criticism... but if it comes off as an attack against them, they may be less likely to hear your words and then discard them as attacks instead of as criticism that they could learn from.

>
> 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.

I can understand anger when it seems like people are responding rudely and unconstructively. I used this as an example at the meeting. I asked everyone to call me an "asshole" (pardon the word there)... I did that to cite it as an example. The first person says it, I can take it. The second person says it, I can take it but it starts to bother me. The third person says it, I can still take it but I am starting to not want to listen anymore. As you go further down and more people say it... it finally makes me no longer want to listen to you. Now, if someone says "I think you are an asshole because X, Y, and Z..." I am more apt to listen because they are adding the criticism and things that I might be able to do to change that impression. Obviously, I am not saying to run around calling people assholes, but I used it to try to explain why it might grow exceedingly more difficult to communicate with officers. They are people too... and can only take so much. If they feel abused, they either quit, or stop listening.

>
> 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.

I can understand that Henry and I, of all people, can appreciate that. :)

>
>
> > --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.

I send my utmost apologies then. I normally am very good at response time. You can ask just about anyone. I will not attempt to make excuses for my failure to respond. I will only offer my apology for that.

>
> 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.

*nods* I can understand your point of view here. I would say, wait until the Cam Council makes a ruling here... and then if you still feel it is wrong, shoot Kris and I an email directly. Kris, I, and you will talk it out, and then, if we can't come to a good resolution, we'll connect Wes into the discussion. Sound fair? :)

>
> 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.

Let's give the chain another shot. It may have failed because I failed to respond. And as I said, I apologize for my failure there.

Another method is let's give the Council a chance to make a ruling... and then we'll see where we stand.

Sound good? :)

Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator
"If I could reach up & hold a star for everytime you've made me smile, the entire evening sky would be in the palm of my hand." - Misty Bownds

Back