Re: A92: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Repsonse to ticalc.org's reasons

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

Re: A92: Dismissal from ticalc.org - Repsonse to ticalc.org's reasons



Why don't you just take this argument to Ricki Lake.
It's way off topic.  Besides, it's over and whining about it won't
change anything.


On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Bryan Rabeler wrote:

> 
> ticalc.org recently posted a response to my article concerning
> my dismissal from their site.  I have posted here my response
> to theirs.  Please read it, I think some more things have been
> cleared up by this.
> 
> You can also access these documents here:
> 
> Original:               http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/ticalc.txt
> Chris' clarifications:  http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/ticalc2.txt
> Response to ticalc.org: http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/ticalc3.txt
> 
> > 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. <BR> To put it all together
> > very simply, the reason was a complete refusal from Bryans side
> > to cooperate on the staff.
> 
> I would not say complete refusal.  I compromised on many things
> during my service at ticalc.org.  If the ticalc.org staff members
> still disagree here, I can go into some of the more "secret" stuff,
> but for now I won't.  The things I wasn't so willing to compromise
> on where things directly related to the way I operated the file
> archives.  As I have stated before, I feel that these objections
> were justified.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I never said everyone was totally equal.  If you recall, I said that
> Magnus, Chris, and the other veteran staff members, did have a little
> more influence than the others.  But it was nothing like a government
> where some people had direct power over others.  I don't believe I was
> ever nagged and nagged to do something before the new staff structure
> was put into effect.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Of course it worked.  Maybe you were unhappy with some of the
> decisions?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> As far as I remember, I never read the original staff proposal.  And
> I surly never did approve of it.
> 
> > 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
> 
> More talking behind my back I assume?  Just because something is
> "bashed down", doesn't mean you can't discuses it on the list.  Fear
> of rejection is not an excuse for not talking about it in public.
> 
> > 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
> 
> There was not a lot of bashing to begin with.  There is a difference
> between personally trying to destroy another and objecting to an idea.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Still doesn't justify your motive for talking to Ahmed about his vote.
> You didn't know he was confused about the vote until after you had
> talked with him.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, it did take me a week or so before I apologized.  As I have said
> before, I should have apologized right away.  In any case, I did
> apologize to hopefully bring closure to the matter.  So now, when it
> looks like my firing was for no good reason, you lean back on the
> TI-Files incident?  That is not fair.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The only things I have really "stood my ground" on where the points
> about the file archive that I have mentioned earlier.  These happened
> in the last two to three months, not six.  I didn't feel I should
> compromise to something that would hurt our file archives.  I tried
> to explain my point of view on those issues when I was on staff, but
> you didn't seem to care.  You said that cooperation with Kirk on
> the file archives was "non-negotiable".
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Some of this is true.  Once, when Kirk began to invade my space as
> the file archiver (as I explained earlier), only 5 reviews were
> added in the past month.  That comes out to about one review a week.
> Kirk was actually brought on to the ticalc.org staff to head up the
> reviews, and so I felt I was justified to point out the fact that he
> was slacking off in his main area and instead trying to do my job.
> 
> I think the characterization of being "sawed off at the feet" is really
> unfair here.  Yes, sometimes things were not always happy, but I was
> trying to explain my position and view on the file archives, and you
> would not listen one bit.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I never did take over anyone else's section.  My only two jobs where
> the file archives and the news editor.  I did suggest that maybe I
> should start doing the reviews also since Kirk wasn't doing enough on
> them.  I mean, come on here... 5 reviews in 30 days?  That's not just
> slow, that's unacceptable.
> 
> The problem with the backup was this.  I conceded that the backup
> file archiver, however unnecessary I thought the job was, could step
> in if I hadn't updated in 72 hours.  Then Kirk said it should be 24
> hours.  I disagreed on that point.  Cause for removal?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Ok, let me clear this one up really fast.  I did take over the #ti-files
> IRC channel a few times.  That happened at least 15 months ago.  I have
> since learned my lesson and haven't done any obnoxious behavior on IRC
> since then.  The "bad atmosphere" that you refer to here is not caused
> by the ticalc.org members.  Most people on IRC know that #ti is the
> place where most supporters of ticalc.org hang out.  Well, I was the
> only active member of the staff that hung out there.  I tried to be as
> kind as I could to the newbies.  However, some of the other people,
> mostly channel operators, were not.  They would, and still do, ban newbies
> if they ask stupid questions or appear to be annoying.  These incidents
> should not be blamed on me.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It was never told or suggested to me that not cooperating and compromising
> on the file archives would lead to dismissal.  I also suggest that a
> majority of these requests were probably from members of TI-Files (or even
> Dimension-TI), since they would have a lot to gain if, IMHO, the most active
> member of ticalc.org was fired.
> 
> > 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
> 
> The part about me documenting my file archive procedures may have been in
> the staff structure that was passed in December.  However, it was not until
> mid-January that Chris started to pressure me to do this.  If you need proof
> on this (speaking to ticalc.org), look at the ZIP file you sent me of my
> home directory.  The date on the fa-guide.txt file is 1/25/99.  Now explain
> to me and everyone else again how I did that in February and not January?
> 
> > 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
> 
> Only the coordinators were informed?  Aren't those the people that must vote
> to dismiss a member?  Wouldn't they already know after they voted?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You could have checked ICQ or AIM and noticed I was away or idle, which I
> assume I was.  You probably also even noticed that I was idle on my SSH login
> to ticalc.org.
> 
> > 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
> 
> Well, with all due respect, of course they are going to say that.  If they start
> to object harshly to the decision, they could be "the next one".
> 
> --
> Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
>    Former maintainer of The Fargo Archive
>    Former ticalc.org staff member
> 
> 
> 

----------------------------------------------------
Shoot-to-Win

Protect the 2nd Amendment
----------------------------------------------------
References: