Re: A89: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
I'd say start your own. You don't sound like much of a team player.
Maybe you could do better working under your rules.
From: "Bryan Rabeler" <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
To: <assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org>, <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>,
<assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org>, <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>,
<assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>, <assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org>,
<ti-basic@lists.ticalc.org>, <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>,
<ti-emulator@lists.ticalc.org>, <shell-developers@lists.ticalc.org>,
<CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM>
Copies to: <mha@ticalc.org>, <aselle@ticalc.org>, <dornfeld@ticalc.org>,
<isaac@ticalc.org>, <ahmed@ticalc.org>, <nbr@ticalc.org>,
<henrick@ticalc.org>, <davidell@ticalc.org>, <nhaines@ticalc.org>,
<kirk@ticalc.org>, <amitai@ticalc.org>
Subject: A89: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?
Date sent: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:15:25 -0500
Send reply to: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
>
> Here is some of my comments on what happened a few days at ticalc.org. Please
> take time to read this, it is very interesting. For those of you who don't like a lot of
> details, sorry. :) I may have gone overboard, but I have tried to be as accurate
> as I could.
>
> If you can't read this, you can always get the same
> text here: http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/ticalc.txt
>
>
> It has been rumored in the past few days that I left or retired from
> ticalc.org. This rumor is not true, in fact, it is very far from the truth.
> Dismissed, fired, disposed of.. that's what really happened.
> This happened on the night of Thursday, March 4, 1999 at around 9:20 PM
> EST; only a few hours after I had been adding files, answering ticalc.org
> e-mail, and adding a news article for Icarus Productions, a site I was very proud
> to get hosted at ticalc.org. Ironically, I was not at the computer when this
> happened and didn't return to the computer until the next morning, which is very
> unusual. I had no school on Friday, due to a teacher inservice day, so I had
> planned to spend a few hours answering some help mail after I woke up. However,
> to my surprise, I found my computer screen filled with AIM and ICQ messages, I
> was disconnected from my SSH connections to ticalc.org, and I was booted off
> IRC. My first instinct was that I had been disconnected from my ISP, but that
> wasn't the case. So I simply tried to log back onto ticalc.org, but a strange
> thing happened, my password didn't work. Then something clicked in my
> mind--there must be some connection here between the password not working and
> being booted off IRC. I knew there was some problem with ticalc.org. So I
> reloaded the page, and to my great surprise, there was a new article posted
> entitled "Bryan Rabeler and ticalc.org Part Ways". Then I just went into a
> state of shock and couldn't believe it. "Why, Why?" I asked myself, "How can
> they just get rid of me like that?"
> I checked my non-ticalc.org e-mail and discovered two e-mails, one from
> Magnus and one from Chris. Magnus had sent me the carefully crafted dismissal
> letter which the four coordinators wrote. Chris sent me a ZIP file which
> contained the files in my home directory, and said that my mail was coming soon.
> I still haven't gotten my mail, I suspect every piece is being read to get
> missing information for the people who are going to takeover my sections.
> There was no single incident labeled as the reason for my dismissal,
> instead they say, it was a series of incidents. I can probably guess what these
> incidents are, but in my humble opinion, they are far from dismissable offences.
> I will try to explain a few of these incidents.
> The first incident that I can remember is the so-called "TI-Files hack"
> incident, which occurred in early November, 1998. What happened was I got the
> FTP password to the TI-Files from a member who was resigning, I logged in using
> that password, and deleted about 15 files in the main directory. I knew TI-
> Files made backups once a week and that doing this wouldn't cause any unfixable
> damage, it was more or less a joke. But nevertheless, nothing can take away
> from how unprofessional and disrespectful this act was, and I am sorry for it.
> I made a public apology on November 10, 1998 in the form of a news article on
> ticalc.org.
> A month or so later, Magnus and Chris proposed a new "staff structure".
> Up until this point, the ticalc.org staff operated as if each member was an
> equal. No staff member could really tell another staff member what to do,
> although Magnus did have some final authority since he owns the box and the
> connection, and Isaac since he owns the domain name, however Isaac has been
> retired for a few years now. Such a staff structure prevented people from
> telling others what to do and made it difficult for a staff member to be forced
> out. However, all that was about to change. The new staff structure called for
> four coordinators to be in ultimate control of the project and to make virtually
> all the important decisions. Specific rules were written up for each section,
> such as the file archives, reviews editor, etc. It was then presented to the
> staff mailing list for discussion. Many of the veteran members agreed with it
> right away (Amitai, Henrik, and Isaac) and the newer members also agreed right
> away (Ahmed and Niklas). I suspect the veteran members agreed quickly because
> they trusted the wisdom of Magnus and Chris, and the newer members agreed
> quickly because they may not have had the "guts" to stand up to the tidal wave
> of support for the new measure.
> I looked the new proposal over carefully but in the end, I didn't agree
> with it. For one, the proposed coordinators were Magnus, Chris, Isaac, and
> Andy. These were good candidates for the job and I didn't feel any of them were
> unqualified, however I felt I was being left out because I was the only "active"
> member that wasn't a coordinator. Sure, other members did work now and then,
> but I contributed just as many hours as everyone else did, most likely a lot
> more, and quite frankly, I felt like they wanted all the power and didn't
> appreciate me at all. Then after I voiced my concerns about that, Chris
> e-mailed me with a metaphor saying I was like the cook in a restaurant and they
> were the owners. That made be feel *SO* much better.
> I also voiced concerns that the coordinators could tell each section
> editor how to run their section and it would turn into a dictatorship. However,
> I was assured again that most decisions would be made by the entire staff and
> the coordinators would not tell anyone how to run their section (a rule later to
> be broken).
> Finally, I voiced concerns that the process for electing coordinators was
> not really fair. The process called for two votes each time an election was to
> be held. The first vote was on whether or not the new staff structure should
> continue and the second was if the current four coordinators should be kept for
> another term. Every staff member could vote on the first question and only the
> non-coordinators could vote on the second. Now if you take the first question,
> you can assume that all four coordinators will vote yes on that, and so you only
> need two more yes votes to get a majority. So even if a majority of the
> non-coordinators are upset with the policy, it still stays in effect. With the
> second vote, if a majority of the non-coordinators voted no, the policy called
> for new coordinators to be nominated and voted upon. Lets say that all the
> non-coordinators banded together and voted in three new coordinators (Magnus is by
> default the editor-in-chief and always a coordinator). Now you are in the
> position of having coordinators without root access having "power" over people
> with root access. Such a situation would not be ideal. Any way you slice this
> coordinator thing, its not really that fair. You are going to have people that
> are always coordinators for "life" and people who work for years on the project
> but are never given the opportunity to be a coordinator. That's just the way
> the system is. Do you think Magnus and Chris would have proposed and promoted
> this new staff structure if they were not picked to be the coordinators?
> Probably not. They were already the veteran leaders on the staff, and so their
> opinions already counted slightly more than everyone else's, what more could
> they want right?
> I know what a lot of you must be thinking, "Why go through all this
> trouble to stop this new policy?" Well, the way the staff worked up until that
> point was good. We were able to talk about things as a team and work through
> our disagreements. Now the coordinators would run things and have the final
> say. If we didn't like their decision, then too bad. Does the book "Animal
> Farm" ring any bells here? I even changed my nickname on IRC to "Snowball"
> because of this. Now the nickname fits perfectly.
> In the end, I was the only one who strongly disagreed with the new
> proposal. Only after Chris told me that I could be a coordinator after the next
> election did I reluctantly vote for the proposal. Now that I look back on it, I
> should probably have either opposed it all the way or resigned over it.
> However, the result is nearly the same as it is now, so it didn't make much
> difference in the end.
> The new staff structure was passed sometime in December and the next
> election was scheduled for the end of January.
> Sometime in mid-January, Chris asked me to document the procedures I use
> to run the file archives, since I am the only one who does the file archives and
> I go by very specific rules and guidelines. I was reluctant to do so at first,
> because doing so would mean that Kirk Meyer (the designated backup file
> archiver) would have an excuse to start working on the file archives. There is
> one little bit of information you need to know before I continue. When I joined
> the ticalc.org project on March 2, 1997, my job was the file archives. I have
> been doing them for exactly two years and two days (ironic isn't it?). I have
> tested every single program I have added or updated to the archives on one of my
> calculators, to make sure it works well and doesn't contain any inappropriate
> material. I know exactly where every file is and why certain files are where
> they are. You could say I have grown "attached" to them. So naturally, I
> didn't want Kirk working on them. For one, it wasn't necessary. I felt I doing
> a good job and we had other sections that needed a lot more work, such as the
> reviews (5 new reviews in the last month is not exactly outstanding by any
> means). Second, I didn't want anything messed up. When new files are added,
> updated, or moved around, I no longer know where everything is and it's less
> effective for me as the file archiver. However, I did write up a long
> documentation file (16,497 bytes and 362 lines long) which detailed my
> procedures. I presented this to the rest of the staff and Chris was pleased.
> Weeks later Kirk, new to the staff, was the first to comment on it. He said
> many of my procedures were useless and redundant, and that testing the program
> on the calculator was not necessary. I responded by telling him that those are
> my procedures and that is how it is to be done. I believe that testing all
> programs on the calculator was what made ticalc.org unique and better from other
> rival sites. So why should I, a two-year veteran at the file archives, have to
> change my procedures because a "newbie" doesn't like them? I was accused of
> being unwilling to compromise here.
> At the end of January, it came time for the first coordinator elections
> after the proposal had been agreed to. Each staff member e-mailed their vote to
> the staff mailing list. I don't remember exactly how everyone voted on the
> second question, but this is pretty close. I voted no along with Ahmed, and
> Kirk voted yes. None of the others voted. It could have been different, but I
> know the vote was 2-1 in favor of new coordinators. However, after Chris
> "talked" to Ahmed, Ahmed changed his vote to undecided, so the vote was tied at
> 1-1, which isn't a majority. Chris said that Ahmed didn't even understand what
> he was voting for, and therefore his first vote was not valid. I do question,
> however, Chris' motive for initially contacting Ahmed about his vote.
> There was also another area in which I was accused of not cooperating and
> not compromising. During the month of January and part of February, I was
> getting behind on the file archives and had almost 200 files in the pending
> directory. A few of the staff members got on my back about this, and I began to
> work on the backlog. After I had the backlog down to about 100 files, Magnus
> demanded that Kirk work on the file archives at the same time, so as to get the
> backlog down to zero. This made me upset because I was already working hard on
> the backlog and it would be down to zero in a couple days. You may be asking
> again, "Why make such a big deal about this?" Well, as I said above, I took my
> job of doing the file archives very seriously and was fairly protective of them.
> In addition, Kirk was the backup file archiver, a position I felt was
> unnecessary from the start. Under the staff contract passed a few months ago,
> the backup file archiver is not to start adding/updating files unless the main
> file archiver is absent for a few days (I said 72 hours in my documentation I
> wrote up for Chris). So Kirk started to add files to the archive while I was
> also adding files to the archive. Most people won't understand this, but that
> situation does not work very well. I told Kirk to stop and let me do my job,
> but he would not stop. So I moved the pending files to a secret location and
> added them one by one, so Kirk could not mess up my work. This entire situation
> came about because the coordinators felt that they could tell me how to run my
> section, something they told me they wouldn't do when I opposed the staff
> structure.
> A few days later, the backlog was down to zero and Kirk was not bothering
> me about the files. All was good I thought. Then Kirk started to write this
> little program that supposedly checked any program file (*.8??, *.9??) for
> integrity and automatically took screenshots all by itself. I was skeptical of
> such a program, especially since he promoted it as a substitute for testing
> programs on the calculator. I have no idea why he spent so much time working on
> the program if he was only the backup file archiver, and thus would probably
> never have a time to use it (however I have a few guesses here). Other staff
> members liked the idea but I opposed it. I suspect this was another incident in
> which I was "unwilling to compromise". Perhaps I fail to understand why I, as
> the veteran file archiver here, know less about doing file archives than the
> rest of the staff. Why doesn't the "expert's" opinion count here?
> So in the end, I gather that the combination of all these incidents was
> the reason I was fired. Many of you may not understand why I had to disagree on
> many of these issues, but trust me, I felt very strongly about those things and
> you have to question whether there was really a conspiracy to get rid of me.
> I was told by a current staff member that the "movement" to dismiss me
> started many months ago. This could have even started before or during the
> discussion on the new staff structure. You have to agree that with the new
> staff structure, it is much easier to dismiss someone than it was before. Plus,
> I believe that one of the main reasons Chris told me to write up documentation
> on how I handle the file archives was so someone else would know how to do it
> after they "disposed" of me. The thought of such a thing makes me sick.
> Now the coordinators will say that there was no conspiracy to dispose of
> me. They can say what they want, but think about it, there are _always_
> conspiracies and cover-ups. I believe this new staff structure and coordinator
> thing will eventually ruin ticalc.org. The coordinators discuss everything in
> secret and don't have to explain everything to the entire staff.
> Now that the first person has been fired from ticalc.org, it will be
> easier to do the next time. I always thought ticalc.org was different and
> unique in the fact that they had never fired anyone, unlike TI-Files and other
> rival sites, and were able to talk out their differences. Sure, I disagreed on
> a few things in the last few months, but the coordinators were unable to
> understand where I was coming from.
> ticalc.org has been a fairly big part of my life these last two years and
> it has ended very suddenly and unexpectedly. At this time, I'm not sure if I
> want to work on another TI site, start a new one, or do something different. If
> you have any suggestions, comments, or questions, you can e-mail me at
> brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us. I'll still be hanging around on the mailing
> lists, AIM, ICQ, and IRC.
>
> --
> Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
> Former maintainer of The Fargo Archive
> Former ticalc.org staff member
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Group: http://www.halcyon.com/ipscone/wwwboard/
Protect your constitutional rights. Your favorite one may be next!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
References: