Claiming 'tyranny-of-majority privileges' sans even the courtesy of a plebiscite, to determine just what size the Minority view might be. Hmmm - just like Government.

Factoid: Of 3 with Admin privileges, 2 have decided to break sword and rip off epaulets of #3. Now The Two are 100% Right, for agreeing with each other. There is no 'minority view'. Neat, convenient, Righteous. Possibly portentous on a larger scale than some minor List.

What's it about?
Karsten Did Something without formal vote of all the tacit, unparticipating roster.. *First*. Much pissing and moaning over an idea K. thought perhaps helpful to many? a few? some?

What do I think it's about? [opinion]

Canaries?

(it doesn't really matter What idea, above - except to observe that - if not liked, the consequences are vanishingly small, easily rectifiable and thus fucking petty to waste a shit-load of stupid homilies over. And sanctimonious hyperbole.)

About:
Control-freakery; the nagging under-the-surface fear that somehow, somewhere - someone might . . . try a little idea that seems neat -- but Of Which I Have No Need\ufffd. And He Didn't Ask *moi* First. As in, so much for allowing for small experimentation without Formal Procedures.

(ie Imagine a discussion of 'democracy' by someone who'd never read Walt Whitman's pithy remarks upon our obdurate know-nothingism of the idea -- then fold into the mix the cute ditty, The Murican Peepul Think ___.)
[/opinion]

Fact - if Karsten really doesn't reconsider: TWiki -??- and the few thousand (?) hours as went into his contributions: Let The List manage. Let 'Them' as talks 'Do'.


{Sheesh} - and from this Dress Rehearsal: wonder what the Hive Mind will say (never mind 'Do') when morning news announces the Next 'invasion' (begun last night, for Your Security) or a little response to NK. Or - -


Pshaw,

Ashton

(And I hate to 'consider the source' in such unnecessary brouhahas - because it's an attitude both demeaning and condescending to numbers of folks.)

I hope it was worth it - this small experiment on default mail addresses and their Cosmic Importance. Unclear whether Karsten's little test might have proved handy for a few; I never got a chance to vote. But (even) I can see, that the reversal of his efforts would have been simple - whether or not it was liked by some of the silent ones - or was not very useful.

I also read with comprehension the content of some of the Other Admin exchanges - with at least two noticeable sub-topics:

1) Whether or not Peter's comment to RM was a suggestion.. or a threat. RM was not going-with-the-program.

2) Whether or not Rob N had any POV of his own - or had created a "Majority Mob" opinion in his head - which would obviate the need for his ever having a POV.

I also read Yaz's exchanges, and all the rest. He doesn't come here though, so.
(So ... WTF has his opinion to do with zIWE?)

Perfection - appears to be about universally absent, whichever way one looks at 1) or 2). And I see that I am not alone in viewing the matter from this angle, quite apart from any techno issues.

Karsten's error in judgment re banning seems.. to have occurred following too little sleep [??] and during the onset of breathless personal excoriations. I've met Karsten. Karsten is Not an irrational vengeance-seeking person. Normally. Period. That is my circumstantial evidence.

He may be impatient with certain formatory rules. What a dastardly trait, apparently. I don't pretend to be privy to all the details that appear to bug a bunch of folks, but I noted the complaints about his cc.ing a bunch of SPAM-related crap back to M$, apparently without considering BW costs. Maybe there's more and then again.. maybe what I was reading was just what it looked like:

the invective of common gossip, triggered in exaggerated fashion - for trying a trivial experiment that could easily have been undone. And then: not immediately apologizing for opposing a 'majority'! (of a small % of the usually completely silent 'List'). Who Knows What The. List. might have made of such a 'convenience feature' - we don't know. Moot.

The dudgeon wasn't about some imaginary damage already done -- but much more about Not Asking Permission.. of The List. Mother, May I?

Nice work, mob. And screw the very much work he has contributed over the years, not just in the n-hours refining TWiki. Not to mention the lore which would make him a National Treasure in any small country. And, even where I don't care to employ the subject matter - I can damn well discern an excellent tech writer. That he is.

AND THIS AIN'T TRIVIAL: at least insofar as links to IWE appear to be morphing into Google; are a springboard to (among other things) Andrew's Opus Maximus - of All the skinny on M$, presented in readable form .. by Anyone with half a brain. And ""we"" [but not *I*] just fired a Writer, in this diminishing pool.

Do something Rash: R I P P L E S . . .

So then - in perspective I see:
If *YOU* Scott, had gotten pissed some particularly evil-Friday
(say, with a weekend ahead of you fixing a major system fuck-up you'd warned about but they went ahead and..)
.. and banned somebody who'd been carping:

bet $$, your uncharacteristic rash act would be pointed out with damn little hyperbole, much understanding and no ad-hominem - and you'd have a chance to fix it. (And no doubt- would).

And remember: why-it-was that One was banned. There were arguments against your decision, but they were civil, unlike today's pile-on. And recall how it was that example #2: was meant to be a limited time-span ban. (Though it had the effect of permanence, in hindsight.)

I don't like mobs. In Armanis or Levis. This was a hissy fit about Not Going through Channels; an attitude which prevents Surprises, including pleasant ones. That overreaction led to his lapse -?- close enough for (my) Government analysis.

I'll miss his intelligence, his competence and.. his aberrations - all in all, a lot kinder compendium, I deem - than the viciousness of his Punishment for Trying Something\ufffd. I'm disappointed that this little experiment in 'democracy' managed to miss the point about tolerance of individual peculiarities: completely.

And responses to several of Rick M's efforts to bring that perspective, convince me that I'm not imagining the overkill of invective. (and Hey.. I've been flamed for stupid-kid name games by the very same RM - could I be reverse-biased? like a 12AX7)

I could be wrong, natch. Maybe when you get to know C+, you don't need human psych any more. You want perfect consensus? EZ - pull plug.

IT - Eats Its Own

Ashton
I don't know C.
But I know the Haydn Trumpet Concerto - it's in E-flat.
As a trumpeter I have made errors.
There was no punishment - except that of more practice.
Were this a universal trait . . .

I don't believe any variant of the blame game is remotely applicable, and I'm glad that you seem similarly inclined. And while I may well be a Party-of-One, I also don't believe that "the rulez" about list management can count for a bucket ot warm spit, re human events that took years to form. (Note how quickly National Honor can come dangerously close to the toilet rapidly, after a lot of years building it.)

Thanks for a sane set of observations. I hope that some apologies shall happen. More, I hope they prove acceptable - trust can be reearned, and that's always an odd situation, one which can only help both 'sides' become less judgmental. Wiser? An opportunity, almost (!)


Regards,

Ashton

In hindsight - sure, better.. But if a thing can be undone in a trice anyway - Who Is Harmed? How intractable is too intractable.. re any tradition or policy?

The answer is undoubtedly














42