[TAG] help

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:19:00AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Benjamin A. Okopnik (ben at linuxgazette.net):
> 
> > That the outcome is binary: it's either open or it's not.
> 
> Well, I _said_ I thought the subject was closed.  Again, you reopened
> it -- see below.  (Why, I have no idea.  It seemed ill-advised to me,
> but that was your call.)

Rick, you cited a quote out of that particular discussion - one that was
only peripherally related to the problem with Mikkel, as I see it -
without which that particular thread _would_ have stayed dead. I
followed it up, for which I take my chunk of responsibility, but you
laid out the bait - and I find it very difficult to believe that you
expected that to be taken as a neutral, disconnected event.

> > You seem to be taking the above as "Rick, you must change your mind"; 
> 
> I was very unclear on _Jay's_ point if not otherwise, and more-or-less
> asked clarification of what _else_ he might mean, but he elected not to
> explain.

Yes, and I'm saying that you interpreted my statements as supporting
Jay's point when they were nothing of the sort. It's not even that I
don't want to take any sides: there aren't any sides that I'd want to
take when you two wrangle. It does nothing positive for anyone, creates
tension on this list, and makes several people unhappy on the behalf of
both of you. I wish you guys would stop - and no, this isn't directed at
you alone; both of you have baited each other at times.

> > I'm saying "Rick, the majority opinion here is to not make the 
> > archives public."
> 
> Since you raise that _new_ issue

[blink] I don't see it as a new issue, but - OK.

> , no, that has _not_ been established to
> be the case.  You have not polled opinion here at all, let alone
> ascertained a "majority".  All you've done is passively collect several
> people's expressed views, out of 61 subscribed addresses (which reflects
> around 58 subscribers, after filtering out multiple addresses).

Out of the most active members of this list - i.e., those who post 90%+
of the content here in a given month, which is something like ten or a
dozen people - those who spoke up, i.e., those to whom it mattered
enough, all except you reacted negatively.

> However, I would certainly hope you would not pass the buck on
> significant decisions to "majority opinion", however allegedly
> evidenced.  Your editor-in-chief role means that the final word is
> rightfully and appropriately yours.

Rick, I did indeed make the decision to not make the list public; the
final responsibility is mine. However, I'm not some sort of a tyrant
ruling from on high: I ask the people here, including those who are not
on the staff of LG, to help me with their perspectives. My initial
reaction was that we should make the list public; however, I asked for
advice because I knew that I was going to miss some of the issues
involved. The objections that were brought up are valid, and can't just
be swept under the rug. Yes, you did offer to fix individual complaints
- but that solution requires everyone to re-read everything they ever
wrote here or just give the issue up as hopeless, which is simply not
equitable.

So, yeah, the last word is mine. But am I going to make a decision that's
going to offend most of the staff and active contributors to TAG? I
don't see that as my job; I wouldn't be doing this job if I did.

> > Please do separate the two, Rick; there's no way I'd say that first to
> > you, since I know how offensive it would be to _me_ to hear it. It
> > bothers me somewhat that you think I would say that.
> 
> I don't believe I attributed the former assertion to _you_, though the
> example of the Jay-derived strangeness was indeed fresh in my mind.  
> 
> In any event, this is trivia, and not what we were talking about.
> 
> > Natural misunderstanding on your part, for the above reason.
> 
> Huh?  Allow me to refresh your memory:

ARRGH! Damn this slippery English! I meant that I wasn't 'referring
"somehow" to the renewing of this topic', to quote you - I was talking
about Mikkel's shit-brained appearance here, and you confused the two.

> > and I'm not "somehow" hatching Machiavellian plots in the dark
> > designed to insult you;
> 
> Good heavens, my good man!  That certainly could not have been farther
> from my mind, I'm nowhere near that easily offended, and I really have
> little time for silly interpersonal psychological soap opera, anyway.
> But I do sincerely appreciate your concern and kind words.

Well, good. :) It really bothers me when my friends think that I'm
trying to do them dirt.

> > > > In addition, there's yet another consideration: Mailbag and TAG are a
> > > > part of LG - and that part would become essentially redundant if our
> > > > archives were just another public list.
> > > 
> > > Non sequitur.
> > 
> > I'm honestly unclear on why you think so, and would appreciate it if you
> > would explain.
> 
> OK.  Hypothetically making the archives publicly accessible would in no
> way prevent publication of properly presented, selected picks of its 
> traffic in LG's The Answer Gang column in exactly the same way it always
> has been.  I am mystified at why anyone would believe otherwise, and so
> am at a loss as to how to demonstrate something that strikes me as
> entirely self-evident.

If all the material is already available on the Web, what would be the
point? We'd have some kind of a parallel thread, a meta-list where we
commented on traffic on a list - this makes no sense. Perhaps you're
seeing something I'm not; feel free to explain how you see this "new and
different LG" operating in any way that does not make us all redundant.
I'm honestly boggled by this, despite your statement that it should be
"self-evident".


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *