|
Our side of the story
Posted on 8 March 1999, 16:37 GMT
This message is posted on the ticalc.org news system, and will be sent to Dimension-TI and the TI-Files for posting on theirs, if they are interested in showing our side of the story. So. To the point. Why was Bryan dismissed? Well. First of all, it was not because of the TI-Files "incident". Nor was it because of the recent backlogs in the filearchives. Nor was it because of any other member of ticalc.org.
To put it all together very simply, the reason was a complete refusal from Bryans side to cooperate on the staff. Now for some details. As Bryan mentions in his mail, we had a change in staff structure last autumn. However, we do not share Bryans view on what the situation was before. According to Bryan, the situation was that everybody was equal. According to the rest of us, it was just "he who yells highest and most often gets it his way". Also, Bryan stated that nobody could tell others what to do. Yet, this is exactly what happened. People were not "told" what to do. But they were nagged on until they did. We did not feel content with that, and felt the need for a change.
In the beginning (a long time ago...), the flat system worked fine. Everybody was able to discuss things through until we got do a decision. This no longer worked. To replace the old "flat system", we (mainly me, Chris and Isaac, the oldest members of ticalc.org) designed a proposal for a new staff structure, to keep things more structured than before, and hopefully bring back some of what we had lost. As Bryan said, this was posted on our internal mailinglist for discussion. Nobody (including Bryan) disapproved of this original proposal, which only listed sketched positions and not whom we recommended to hold them. A few changes were made per requests from the rest of the staff, but this was mainly very minor things. After this, we sent out the "second proposal", which included our recommendations for the initial holders of the posisions. Bryan was, as you all have heard, not nominated for "coordinator", but "only" for news system, PotM manager, File Archive and at least one "upcoming section". This proposal was met from Bryan, with general complaints on a lot of points. Some of which were the same points that he earlier approved on. The discussion went on for a few weeks, and everybody posted comments. Including the "new staffers". Not all comments were posted "in public", because anything written there was usually hevaliy bashed down on. Eventually we held a vote, and a clear majority decided that this new system was what we wanted. Thus, the new system was implemented. In the beginning, this meant almost nothing to the existing staff, except the amount of bashing on the internal mailinglist dropped rapidly. Also, in order to fill all the posts listed in this new structure, we hired Nathan Haines to handle the support mail. Nathan was hired on a 30 day trial basis, which he passed easily by doing a great job in handling the help mail, which had fallen behind for months before his hiring.
As we had agreed on before the initial vote, a new vote for both the system and the coordinators was held in late january 1999. The vote consisted of two questions, "Should our new staff organisation be kept" and "Should the current coordinators be kept". The current coordinators were NOT entitled to a vote on the second question, in order to keep the system fair. Though we will not disclose who voted what (secret ballot - which is common procedure), I can tell you that pretty much everybody voted yes on the first question. Some of the coordinators voted yes there, others abstained from voting in order to make it even more fair. On the second question, everybody except Bryan voted yes. To the story is that some staff members changed their votes after they had been sent the complete original proposal (which they had not read, because they had not been on the staff long enough). But this did not change the outcome of the vote, it just made it clearer. This should hopefully explain the issues raised by Bryan about the new staff structure and about the voting. Now for the real reason Bryan was dismissed. The rumors say that the TI-Files incident does or does not have anything to do with it. Well, the TI-files incident does not have anything directly to do with it. The fact that we had to lean on Bryan very hard for a long time in order to make him apologize for it does. It is part of the reason, but in no way the whole story. As far as I can recall, it has not happened more than a very very few times in at least 6 months that Bryan has backed down from a point. In our opinion, a site like this can only be run if the staff-members cooperate. And cooperation is based on compromise. And compromise requires people to back down from their standpoints. At several points, discussions brewed down to just throwing insults around. Or whenever somebody made a "bad comment" on one of Bryans sections, the result would be "but [insert somebodys name here] hasn't updated in a long time". Some people were "afraid" to post to the internal list, because they knew that they would get sawed off at the feet by Bryan. The general atmosphere on the staff list was not a friendly one, and we feel that we cannot operate under such conditions. This was not all Bryans fault, but in just about every case it started with Bryan. On several occasions, Bryan either threatened to, or did, take over other members sections because "they weren't working fast enough". However, as soon as somebody even mentioned that he might need a backup (not to mention if somebody said it was time for the backup to step in) on the filearchive section (or any other of his section), things rapidly turned ugly. Over the time he has been on our staff, we have also received a large number of complaints about his behaviour on the IRC. Channel-takeovers and generally bad behaviour against newbies have been the major reasons. When you are a staffmember of a TI site, whatever you do in the TI related IRC channels will be associated with the site you work for, and this is not what we wanted. This alone would not in any way warrant a dismissal from the staff, but it doesn't exactly strengthen the position in front of the other issues.
Finally, about the way that Bryan was dismissed. First of all, let me say that this was not a "moments choice". A lot of people requested that we dismiss him after the TI-Files incident. Internally, such requests were voiced even earlier than that. Several times over, we decided "Bryan deserves another chance", and told him what was required to do so. One of the times, it was the apology about the TI-Files incident. Other times, it was just about cooperation.
We were happy to see that Bryan, after a lot of leaning on him, decided that he should apologise. And we are even happier to see that he now beleives it was the right thing to do.
However, we repeatedly saw no movement towards a more cooperative attitude. The posting of the "file archive procedures" that Bryan did this february, was one of the few things he did. Chris did not, however, ask him to do that during january. It was a part of the original new staff structure proposal that was sent out in october last year. Nevertheless, while some of the comments on this proposal were out of line, all were not. But they were all met with the same irresponsive stubbornness from Bryans side. After many of these repetitions, we decided we had no other choice than to let Bryan go. After this decision, things moved fairly fast. I beleive it took about two or three days. During this time, only the coordinators were informed. The actual disabling of his account was done at a time when Bryan was usually on-line, at around 02:00 GMT (21:00 EST). As Bryan said, it was unusual that he was not around by then, and I beleive this is one of the things that led to the confusion. A mail was sent to Bryans personal non-ticalc.org mail address. The fact that he did not read this mail "by default", which we did not know, was probably another.
Right after the mail was written to Bryan, a notive was posted on our internal mailinglist. A bit later, it was posted on the main site. We were very surprised that Bryan did not act, and now we know why - he simply was not there. However, we had done our best to time it to some point when he was usually on-line. Our staff is spread throughout many timezones, and this kind of coordination is very hard. It is one of the things we have always had trouble with, and probably always will. After the dismissal, some of our "junior staff members" expressed concerns about why this had been done. However, after the coordinators had explained what had happened, they all beleive that what we did was for the best of the site. It was not an easy decision, but it is what we all beleive is for the best of the site. If this results in a "boycott" of our site, then it's out of our control. We hope this does not have to be the case, and that people will continue to use our site, as well as others.
Magnus
(With, I beleive, the support of the rest of the staff)
|
|
|
|
|
The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.
|
|
|
Re: Our side of the story
|
|
me
|
|
I'm never using these archives again
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 22:53 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Our side of the story
|
|
Justin Stout
|
|
So you guys gave the guy several jobs instead of a coordinator position. I guess all that extra work makes up for the lack of power he had. I know I would have loved that. You say the reason you fired him was a lack of cooperation, but the nearest thing to a concrete reason is that he was the only person that voted against the coordinators. Also, you say that compromise means backing down from your standpoints. That is the most ridiculous, biased statement I have heard in a long time. Compromise means making a mutual decision based on both standpoints, especially if the opposing standpoint does all the work. I really don't see how you guys are going to keep up now that he's gone. I guess that report you tricked him into writing when you were planning to fire him will help. For people that want to seem so professional, you people really handled this at least as immaturely as Rabeler himself.
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 23:03 GMT
|
|
|
Running sites like businesses
|
|
Rob Hornick, LuCiD WaRe
|
|
Running sites like businesses is a valid concept, but I say think about the main point of having a site like this. What do you get the most hits for? The archives. Period. If you guys gave Bryan the responsibility of running the file archives (including testing programs and taking screenshots) than you definitely should have granted him a "coordinator" position. My question here is: what did the "coordinators" do? There are 3 positions I can think of: File Archives, News, and Technical (web design, etc.) Perhaps if you were to say what these coordinators did, then I might understand better.
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 23:13 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Our side of the story
|
|
Mike Smeen
|
|
I have no officially lost all respect for the site. I loved this site, especially over all the others. The main reason: the file archives were the best around. And why this, may I ask? Because one man known as Bryan Rabeler decided to spend 3+ hours a day doing it. As a #ti operator on EFNet, I know from talking to him and the job that he has been doing that he is a great guy, despite all the incidents. Even after reading your response I think that not only should he not be fired, but that HE should be the one bossing everyone around, because he does more work than all of you. Kirk Meyer is a completely different story, as from "working" on the review staff I know what he is like. He probably *DID* try and take Bryan's position. Actually I was told by Andy Selle that I could possibly take over as head of reviews (well I asked since he was retiring), and now I am glad that I didn't.
You all need to think to yourselves what you've done. You've taken your most dedicated member away... By the way that backup archiver of yours doesn't have feelings and can't talk, so you can boss it around all you want.
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 23:43 GMT
|
|
|
My View on this entire mess
|
Chad Palmer
(Web Page)
|
|
Well First of all I agree partially with BOTH sides of this argument. I agree that Bryan's Conduct on IRC and in his dealing swith other TI related sites has been very unprofessional in the past and continued to be so until recently. But the same can be said about many other members of the ticalc.org staff, in fact some have been more hostile toward other sites and have had worse conduct on irc than Bryan himself (though we won't call any names) However, having been around when he was first added to the ticalc.org staff my viewpoint has always been that he was basically nothing more than a workhorse, doing the work others were too lazy to do. Yet over time he came to want more say in his sections and more power in the site itself (which is completely justified IMHO, considering before he came the site was rarely updated at all). The details of his dismissal are irrelevant to my view so I'm not going to state the conflicts held within the different accounts. One point that seems to be agreed upon by both parties is that bryan didn't like having somebody (mainly a newbie) Kirk telling him how to do his archives. Well I don't think he was being unreasonable here considering he was almost the only one who ever updated them anyway. The bottom line is I think it was a poorly made decision, and it reflects badly on everybody involved. I personally feel that as long as he was doing his job he should've been left alone, as for him doing other people's jobs.. well at least somebody was doing it. Just my two cents..
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 23:51 GMT
|
|
|
Some more of the TRUTH
|
Jeffrey Malone
(Web Page)
|
|
Now last nigh, me and Chris were sending a few emails back and forth pending the e-mail that I made to all the mailing lists (read that by clicking on what is supposed to be my web page). Now he sugested that I not go ahead with this until I got both sides of the story. So I mailed him back with an agreement to that idea and said that he should post his side of the story. Now not nowing that whether he would or would not have posted their side any way, I can say that for sure I sped things up. I also told him to hold an invite-only IRC discussion about what it was all about and to have a formalized argument than name calling. Not to much of my surprise he made up excuses saying we can't do that because some of us are in deifferent time zones. So I am going to follow up with that e-amil with my answer on this message board:
Cris,
There are 2 ovious solutions to this problem; one, have the disscusion on a Friday or Staurday night so it will be early for them and late for us. Two have a message board instead of an acutual disscusion. Chris, you can reply to me on this message board or by e-mail (e-mail if it's more of a private thing).
Jeffrey Malone
PS. I am not going to post the e-mails between Chris and me last night but maybe if youre really interested e-msil me. If you think so however Chris that these should not be posted e-mail me.
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 23:55 GMT
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Re: Re: Some more of the TRUTH
|
|
Stephen
|
|
Seeing as how this correspondence is public I feel I'm justified in giving my 2 cents
>>meeting; we have members on the west coast, east coast, and in Sweden. Time zones are a legitimate problem.<<
That's what? a 9 hour difference at most. It sounds pretty doable to me. How 'bout 9:00 PM in CA and noon in Sweden(correct me if I'm wrong).
>>I also made it clear we would go to the effort of setting it up anyway if it was necessary. So
please post that email.<<
Yes, please do.
>>That's not to say we will definitely do an IRC meeting, though<<
Having an arbitrated discussion between both parties could be very beneficial. I see no reason for you to refuse.
>>I think the response to having both sides out in the open has been a little more fair to us, and I'm not sure there's much more to the issue that doesn't boil down to our word vs. Bryan's.<<
If you had a private IRC chat w/ an arbitrator you could actualy prove your point without worry of losing secrets. Then it wouldn't be just your word versus his.
>>I also don't know if I can say you sped up our response.. the first thing Magnus did this morning was to write a response and post it, and he wasn't really aware of my correspondence with you. But if it gives you an ego boost, feel free to take the credit :)<<
God, if that wasn't a bit arrogant, I don't know what is.
Your responses have proven to be so far just as biased and uncompromising as Bryan and as of yet neither of you(Bryan and the official ticalc) have backed up most of your claims.
Stephen
|
|
|
9 March 1999, 03:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some more of the TRUTH
|
|
ticalc_chris
|
|
Here's the message I sent to Jeffrey in response to his 2 suggestions:
----------
Hi Jeffrey,
The IRC discussion is an interesting idea. Logistically, that's a toughie because we have staff in Sweden and on both coasts. (Lousy time zones.) But we do need some sort of efficient forum for this, it seems.
We'll send out a response to Bryan's letter tomorrow. (I'm about to go to bed, and Magnus is going to wake up in an hour or two.) There's a pretty good chance a face-to-face meeting won't be necessary once our half is told, but if it is, we'll work something out.
...
----------
Sent at 2:18 am EST (where I am), which is 6 hours behind CET (where Magnus is), so that's 8:18 am in Sweden. I was going to bed (late), and it was morning in Sweden.
Stephen's example is backwards. 9 PM in Sweden is noon in California.
I'm a little shocked that I've taken so much flak for this whole incident, and you have this to thank for not hearing much from the rest of our staff. Shooting the messenger isn't going to encourage anybody else to come forward.
I'm done here. Send me email directly if you've got something to say.
Chris
|
|
|
9 March 1999, 08:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The long awaited e-mails...
|
Jeffrey Malone
(Web Page)
|
|
Well I finally got to the right computer and here are the e-mails in order fromthe first to last.
Hi Jeffrey,
If you're doing this strictly based on Bryan's email today, I think you're
making a mistake. Bryan's account of the story is pretty one-sided, and I
don't think we deserve to have it taken strictly at face value. We
haven't responded as a group to Bryan's letter because the discussion so
far has been largely juvenile, and we don't think a round of "he-said,
she-said" is going to make this any easier for anybody. That's not to
mention that the discussion is off-topic on every mailing list it's been
sent to.
However, I'm happy to give our side one-on-one. I've been singled out as
the bad guy in this case, but the simple facts are that I'm not gaining
any prestige or respon sibilities by having Bryan gone and I'm not
singlehandedly able to fire anybody. I'd like to hear what you think
we've done wrong here, and I'd be happy to give our half. If you're going
to be putting a lot of effort into your boycott, at least give yourself
the satisfaction that you've heard both sides and you still think it's
justified. If I can change your mind, or help you see it from our angle,
that's great. If not, do what you've gotta do. But get all of the
information before you act on it.
Chris
The above is an exact copy of everthing but one word that I had to put a space in to post.
My reply was lost but I think Chris still has a copy. Why don't you post it Chris?
The rest of the e-mails have all been posted. If Chris posts the 3 message that I sent to him, they will all be out...
I have summed up everthing in a txt document that can be viewed on line by clicking on what is supposed to be my web page.
Jeffrey Malone
|
|
|
10 March 1999, 01:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internet time
|
argoneus
(Web Page)
|
|
regarding timezone differences, ticalc.org should begin using beats, the Internet time devised by swatch (for info. check out www.swatch.com) . Basically, each day is divided into 1000 "beats", and this time is the same worldwide. So Magnus in Sweden would coordinate with Amitai (is it Central US?) at a designated global time, e.g. @334 (beats are designated by the @ symbol). News posts should also be set in beats, so people could know exactly what time the item was posted without doing any calculations. (who am I? a swatch rep.? no, just someone who sees the concept of a global time as fascinating and useful.) you can download an application for mac, win, or unix that displays the current time in beats, or, if you're like me and use linux, many clock applets have been updated to support beats. So use this..make things easier on yourselves.
Now, regarding this controversy. The basic premise is over whether Bryan should've been fired or not. On one level, and perhaps the one that makes me most cynical, I don't really care. **As long as ticalc provides the same useful service they always have, and things don't fall behind, i.e. files aren't updated as often and aren't checked, and the quality of service doesn't diminish or deteriorate,** then it doesn't matter to me, so long as the reasons were justified.
On another level, this is just a sick twisted plot that should have, in Chris's own words, been kept "confidential" and "interior." Not only keeping the details secret, but keeping the firing secret as well. Things like this make ticalc.org look bad -- you guys should realize this, and should have thuoght about it before posting that Bryan had been fired. What ensued can only been described as a vortex of immaturity, shifting blame, and disregard for others' feelings. While the professional aspect of ticalc.org has slightly dimished, in my opinion, I'll still use it, because it is the best archive and repository of ticalc related items, and because, frankly, I could care less about the "professional, business" aspect of ticalc. I can't really say whether Bryan should have been fired or not, or comment on the method in which it occurred. I wasn't there personally, nor can I attest to the validity of the statements made. I can only empathize for Bryan, and say if it happened to me, as he stated it in his case, my feelings would be very similar to his, meaning I would feel screwed over by the other coordinators, not given enough credit for my efforts. On ther other hand, I can also empathize with the coordinators, if things occurred according to their statement, that if Bryan was rude and uncompromising, always demanding things his way, never cooperating, then the firing was appropriate. There are two sides, after all, and it's almost impossible to discern the truth in such cases. My advice is to forget about it, and find someone or ones to replace Bryan, because regardless of what he did or didn't do, he did a superb job with the file archives, testing every program, the news postings, and others various tasks he was assigned. I imagine it will be hard to find someone as dedicated and focused as Bryan to fill the void, and someone that will spend the effort that he did.
|
|
|
9 March 1999, 07:53 GMT
|
|
|
Re: My true f++k--g Story
|
ticalc.org HATER
(Web Page)
|
|
Ti calc.org is unprofessional and has horrible communication between staff members.
You should of never fired someone who is taking their own unpaid time to help the site. Its almost like telling someone to stop giving to charity. I find it very unprofessional to not talk about his resignment with him instead of sending an email.
I wish Bryan luck and hope for everyone to support a better site.Ti-Files and Dimension TI, time to walk over ticalc.org and talk their internet viewers with you.
|
|
|
8 March 1999, 23:57 GMT
|
|
|
I think I understand.
|
|
ProEugene
|
|
I know why they Bryan was fired. After reading both sides of the story and thinking about it, the staff was right to do what they did. Bryan has a obsession. Yep. He spent his two years at ticalc.org doing what he loved and did a good job. When he ran out of work, he started to do other peoples section. Just re-read the article and you'll see and read Bryan's to. He is addicted to calculators and ticalc.org. If he ruled this site, it would be the best site ever made cause he would be every second contributing to this site. Bryan was upset with everything because he was not a coordinator and he wanted more. This was his love and the staff took it from him. Don't blame me if Bryan is found dead, strung by a rope in his bedroom next week.
|
|
|
9 March 1999, 00:13 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|
