A89: Re: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

A89: Re: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Why did it happen?


|DISCLAIMER| <I do not support server crashing, hacking, or anything illegal
this is just my passive thoughts on the subject to educate therefore I
accept no responsibility for anything at all reguarding this e-mail.>
<-have to ;-)

I dont know weather I am out of line by saying this or not but if it were me
I would seek pure revenge. Go get the assistance of a couple of good hackers
and not only tear the server to the ground but burry it alive. I know a
couple who can do this but for so many people reading this I wont say who
they are. Revenge isn't always the best way but I bet you can have ticalc
down for a little over a week if you do it right. Honestly though, If if
someone screwed me like that I dont know exactly what I would do.

My personal thoughts are this:
Chris is a  totaliaristic bastard who will likely end up bringing down
ticalc by himself.
-Honestly Chris there is a moral responsibility to inform him first AND give
him time to resign if you wanted him gone that bad a-hole.

Ahmed sounds like a good guy but independence is a right you should
exercise.

Kirk will end up screwing things up and die of a mental breakdown.

If they think they can just trash 2 years of your life the I say screw them
and take them down with ya, by this I mean maybe boycot the server together
to possibly make chris waste thousands a month on HIS wanna be high speed
connection. Lastly just sit back and watch the system fall in on it's self.
Also, I have no right to talk cause I am a bastard too and I talk a lot of
S*it just in case anyone was wondering.
And anyways Bryan see if Ti-Files will take you they are better than ticalc
anyway and you have demonstraited a kick ass ability with the archives so I
commend that. And personally I think that checking each file before it gets
posted is something all sites should do.
I SUPPORT U MAN!    =]
DIE TICALC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


>
>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
>
>
>