[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Leon,

I rethought it a bit since your last post, and I guess you are right about Lee.

First, though, I'll say that although he has posted more recently about direction and focus of the board, I took that as all relating to the Peter C situation. I don't remember exactly and probably couldn't find all of his posts again, but as I read them I took them as being generic in tone but definitely with Peter at the core of the thinking - the poster child of the concern.

But as to a time-out, I guess I do have to agree with that. (Sorry Lee - but I'll explain here.)

I agree with what Lee did, and I think a lot of other people did too. But what if the next person that does it doesn't have as much support? What if it isn't a long-time contributor? What if someone crashes the board in protest over an issue and I don't agree with it? How would I look at it then?

I guess that doing something like that requires action whether I agree with it or not. In that sense, whoever it was upthread that characterized this as Lee taking one for the team hit it dead on. He did take one, because there is something to take. And it was for the team because it's obvious that a lot of us agree with him and are grateful. But Leon is right in saying that you can't just let it go either.

So Leon - put on your Solomon hat! lol. I understand that you have to do something here. But it should include consideration of Lee's status here, his long history of contribution and not causing problems, the fact that so many people here support what he did, etc.

In other words, maybe some time off is called for, but having it be short and symbolic might not be a bad way to go.



And Dan P, I'm 48 years old and generally consider myself a reasonable adult. Peter's posts were out of line in that they did not fit in with the culture of this board as defined by its participants. Telling people to skip these posts is oversimplistic and ineffective. It is the rationale by which this board would have no focus at all and anyone could post anything. How that could possibly work is beyond me.

In Peter's case, he seemed to dance on the line between what is on-topic and rational versus what is peripheral, superficial, and cluttering to board focus. I think that's why it was so hard to deal with and why he caused so much dissent - because he was on the line and wasn't clearly either on or off topic.

But the board itself, overwhelmingly it seems, came down on the side of deciding his posts fell on the wrong side of an indistinct line. That is no more "wrong" than the board as a group deciding that my posts complaining about my job or talking about my holiday plans are out of line. Groups self-govern - that's how it is.

Reasonable people finally saying that enough is enough does not make them children, childish or immature.

Joann