European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Transparency

by Jerome a Paris
Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:40:32 AM EST

Some accusations surfaced Friday about last month's fundraising exercise (the 800 euros raised via Colman from voluntary contributions). So let me make some things clear:

I had nothing to do with the whole process. I did not ask for the money, and did not request that anyone contribute. There were various motivations, but the initial rationale was to support the site and to help Booman cover past costs. That was done: the money was paid to Booman in full.
Discussions were also initiated or to move towards a European-based server, or an ad-free site, or to create a community that would own the site. These discussions, which I encouraged, although I did not join much, were explicitly described as a long term, non-urgent project for the site.
Thus there was no link between the donations drive and the future arrangements for the site.
That does not mean the discussions for future arrangements did not get anywhere. They allowed a number of ideas that many active members seem to agree on to emerge. It's just that implementation would require commitments in time and effort that we're simply unable to make right now.
in the meantime, requests to modify the site bump up against the fact that major changes would require the intervention of Andy, the programmer who initiially built the site - and who still has not been paid in full for doing so, and minor changes can or cannot be done by Colman, depending on his availability and his ability to actually go into the code

I am saddened by statements that (i) there was no transparency, as everything was done in public, and (ii) that donors were "suckered". They donated voluntarily, at the initiative of readers, not gnomes, to cover past expenses, which was done.

As you know, ET is no one's first job. We're all busy with our lives and work. Neither Colman nor any of the gnomes have any financial interest in the site, and all they do for ET is thanks to their volunteering time and effort. Colman occasionally tinkers with the site's code because he has found that he is able to do so, but that was never requested of him when he joined the gnomes. Booman and I have a formal financial interest which, as described before, is slightly negative (i.e. the site costs more than it brings in), something neither of us ever complained about.

If you have ideas to improve the site, feel free to discuss them on the site and, if relevant, to get them implemented yourself. As I said, I'm open to new ways to run the site and, if necessary fund it (and to get rid of ads). You'll find an open door. But please, please, enough of the nasty innuendo and accusations that Colman or the gnomes or anyone else is not doing enough for the site and is "suckering" anyone. That's just inappropriate and, frankly, unfair.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Transparency | 106 comments (106 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

And just so that all is clear (4.00 / 7)

I'm off to the airport and will be working all of today, and most probably tomorrow and Tuesday, so my silence will only be cause by purely practical reasons (the "kidnapping" by my clients that poemless has alluded to).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:42:30 AM EST

Re: Transparency (4.00 / 2)

in the meantime, requests to modify the site bump up against the fact that major changes would require the intervention of Andy, the programmer who initiially built the site - and who still has not been paid in full for doing so, and minor changes can or cannot be done by Colman, depending on his availability and his ability to actually go into the code

It cannot be true that Booman and you cannot decide to give server-side administrator access to whoever you damn well please, therefore intervention by Andy is not a necessity but a choice.

Are you saying that further intervention by Andy will not happen unless and until he feels he's been sufficiently compensated for his initial work on the site? How much money do you reckon he's owed?

There is not much you can do to affect Colman's availability to make changes, but regarding his ability to actually go into the code, it simply cannot be true that you and Booman cannot give him [or anyone else] the required low-level access should you decide to do so.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:12:23 AM EST

I don't want to speak for Colman (none / 0)

but I think the issue is not one of access to code (I'd give him all the access he requires, of course), but of a combination of (i) knowledge of the specific code and (ii) complexity of the task.

But if you know someone familiar with Scoop software, and willing to do changes on the request of some of us, then by all means bring him/her forward, we'll be happy to use that talent.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:55:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't want to speak for Colman (none / 0)

Give Colman server-side admin access unless he doesn't want it, he's free not to use it, but it's the only way for him to answer to knowledge and complexity questions.

I have no doubt that, among the front-pagers, Colman, De and DoDo actually have the skills necessary to do low-level tweaking, and they obviously have enough of your trust to have full administrator access.

Familiarity with the scoop software can be acquired, all one would have to do is read this. An interest in the site is a much more important qualification than previous experience because it is by now obvious that monetary rewards for work on ET will be few and far between, if any.

A number of people have made comments at one point or another that indicate some familiarity with the workings of scoop, or confidence in their ability to make it work. This includes Metatone, ThatbritGuy, and ceebs, for instance. I also have no doubt Alex in Toulouse could bring himself up to speed in a day.

Why should I have to search and bring forward talent? Why don't you post a diary explicitly requesting talent to come forward?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 06:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gah (none / 0)

Why should I have to search and bring forward talent? Why don't you post a diary explicitly requesting talent to come forward?

Because you're the one asking for changes to the software!!!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I'm just pointing out that Colman is often saying the reason he can't do this or that is that he doesn't have access to the server.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:12:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's ask him (none / 0)

I've always seen it more as a lack of time or desire to dig into it. If it's indeed an access problem, that will be corrected, obviously.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:17:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask him (none / 0)

It is indeed an access problem, he's said it before.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask him (none / 0)

He's never asked me, which probably means that he thinks I cannot solve the issue. Again, I'll freely admit to my incompetence there.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I'm not the one asking for changes to the software, I'm the one sticking my neck out.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I appreciate your efforts; I guess I just did not like the tone of your comment implying that we (Colman and me) had somehow cheated you of anything.

Let's just focus our efforts in the same direction.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Am I now free to discuss the profit-sharing mechanism behind ET in public?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:22:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Ask Booman first. I'm ok with discussing it in public.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Can you answer me one question? Are we stakeholders or a revenue source?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For the time being: neither (4.00 / 2)

You are not a revenue source as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, the money aspect does not worry me, and I'm willing to cover all costs. I did not initiate the call for money but found it a nice thing, so I was not going to block it.

Like I said, I'm open to the idea of community members becoming stakeholders, but I simply don't have the energy to organize it. I will look at proposals with an open mind.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:29:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Do you mind if I direct you, and anyone else interested, to a diary I did just three months ago, in which I tried to put together some thoughts about cooperative work at ET after the first EU Consultation we did, on biofuels?

In that diary I expressed doubt about whether the Scoop diary discussion thread was the best mechanism for collaborative editing, and wondered what other tools might be available. The Number One community member who denied any interest or possible practical application to my wonderings was you.

See comments: here, here, and here.

I note in particular that you thought we should just get on with what we had, that we could talk about what we might have till the cows came home but it would change nothing, and that Colman was right to have made software choices (the ET Wiki) that involved least hassle for him.

Strange how it's now apparently you who are sticking your neck out.

In that discussion I was talking practically about how we could work together as a community, and you were the first person putting down any suggestions I might make. Sven saw the point of having a discussion about the tools we might use, but you said to him:

In my experience with volunteer associations, ideas only get implemented by those who have them. Ultimately the way this works is that someone puts up a resource and starts working on it.

(BTW, that's what Jérôme did with ET, which is why we have it, just sayin'...)

and then:

I reiterate: It is not obvious to me that we have hit the limits of our platforms.

Colman was cautious about what I was saying, but it was he who suggested we use writeboard as a Web-based collaborative editing tool (and, having since then taken a look round at what's available on Internet for free, I think he's right writeboard is the lightest and snappiest for our purposes), which proved he was listening and coming up with something.

Just not you. What a change there is now, where you are apparently representing others who want things changed on the site, and are being bitterly frustrated by bad Colman and/or other forces in the background. What is it you're trying to show here, Mig, I don't get it?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 11:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I'm being bitterly frustrated by bad Colman?

Jerome has abdicated all technical responsibility on Booman, who is essentialy AWOL from ET discussion threads and (so I hear) can't or won't answer any technical questions that Colman asks him (like, for instance, traffic statistics for the site). Also, convincing Booman to get Andy to do stuff seems to be the big stumbling block to get anything done server-side. Colman has done just about anything that has been suggested and can be done with frontpager privileges. It took him all of 5 minutes to add the capacity to embed youtube videos. What sould he not do if he had the server administrator password, which only Booman [not Jerome] can give him?

We haven't hit the limits of the Scoop platform, we have hit the limits of the management structure set up 18 months ago to bring the site online.

And "I'm sticking my neck out" because it took me getting a '2' rating from Jerome before he thought it was time to have this conversation.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 12:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

My comment did not concern the management question, but your own comment about tweaks to the software. (About which you have put up another diary asking for volunteers). I repeat that three months ago your attitude was very different. I don't understand what is so important, so urgent to be done, that it justifies so much acrimony? (And don't tell me you haven't been acrimonious, you have and are).

So please reply: why, when I suggested a Scoop thread was not the handiest of tools for collaborative editing, did you dismiss that out of hand by saying we just needed to change our user settings, use the Wiki, and generally make do with what existed? And why do you now urgently need a techie to work on Scoop, to do what, and with whose agreement?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 12:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (4.00 / 2)

I have put another diary asking for volunteers because Jerome told me to, pretty much.

About three months ago, can you see the difference between questioning the need to set up new resources and questioning the way the existing resources are underutilised? Regarding writeboard, it's been handy, and since it is hosted by a third party it requires no administration work on our part, but we also quickly ran into problems with edit conflicts, minor edits, and the edit/diff history. You also said the HTML was a pain to work with, and converting to printable form was a pain. But hey, it beats having to find a server to set up MediaWiki (and manage the software). So kudos to Colman for that.

I have just been getting increasingly frustrated with the obvious inability to experiment with scoop configuration (I am not even talking about extending the code of the SCOOP engine, just playing with the existing customisation options) because there's only one person on the planet who can do that, and that's Andy. Like I said, Colman has added functionality to the site with (apparently) little effort but often he has complained that something was too low level. The point is, if apart from a team of frontpagers you had a team of admins with low-level access, things would start to happen. I can't tell you what those would be, I suppose I should go searching in comment threads for the places where I understood Colman was saying "that sounds like a good idea but I don't have the password". The last thing Colman did in a very short time was make it so that when a diary if frontpaged it stays on the recent and recommended diaries list. I just wonder how much effort would it really take to carry out more substantial tweaks with low-level access.

Things that come to mind from the past 6 couple of months are

the ability to choose whether to have web ads displayed
a new account class between ordinary user and front-pager
a tab at the top of the page (similar to the "diaries" tab) which displays the top 10 recommended diaries, or replacing the "home" tab with a pull-down menu with the same "start page" options as you can find in the user preferences

...

None of this is mission-critical, it would just be nice. Some of these "feature requests" have been motivated by the fundraising exercise itself, and the answer tended to be that it couldn't be done because Booman had to convince Andy to do it.

Also, many months ago we had some threads where site statistics were discussed. Some statistics (for example, numbers of diaries or comments, or traffic details) were inaccessible because they required server-side access, or direct access to the database. Again, not mission-critical, but also not requiring new resources to be set up but just opening up the existing resources for trusted, able users to take advantage of them.

We discussed some of the stumbling blocks at the London meetup with Colman, TBG and metatone.

If I have gotten acrimonious it is because I perceived that valid questions, requests, points and arguments were apparently being completely ignored by Jerome and Booman. Those who dared to suggest as much, if undiplomatically because they were getting frustrated, got badly bruised (like Nomad here). There seems to be quite a bit of discontent [at least half a dozen regular contributors].

But you and I have a way of talking past each other. It is entirely possible that you'll say this long comment doesn't in the least answer your questions, so I'll leave it at that.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 01:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

the past 6 couple of months

I mean 6 weeks to a couple of months

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 01:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 1)

Your comment is a reply to the question I asked. Of course there are heaps of things to do to improve the site, and I have participated in some of those occasional discussions. I'm not against changes that make the site easier to use -- who is?

As for stumbling-blocks that you discussed at the London meet-up, my diary three months ago hoped to bring up a couple of points about stumbling-blocks Alex, Alexandra in WMass and I had discussed at the Toulouse meet-up. You didn't show much consideration for those points then. Perhaps they were the wrong ones. They did, however, concern working cooperatively on papers and making collective community knowledge more easily available.

And what you're not replying to is why it is so vital to make an urgent issue of this right now?

I'm sorry you say Nomad got "badly bruised". As I (perhaps clumsily) tried to point out to him, I felt bruised by his comment. As I do by the innuendo that has been flying around for some time now that suggests there's some sort of hidden agenda "gnomes" are party to.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (4.00 / 2)

It's not vital to make it urgent right now, but it's been festering for 6 weeks. So it might just as well have blown over right now as a week ago as two weeks from now.

Precisely because it is not vital I did not write a diary about it. But I can tell you a great many people are unhappy, but they've just about giving up voicing their concerns publicly on the site so as not to incur the wrath of the gnomes.

And regarding this and the hidden agenda, I have also been busy disabusing people of the notion that this is somehow or at all to do with the gnomes.

You're going out of your way to react to me as your enemy.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:47:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

"You're going out of your way..."

On the contrary, you're the one who's putting himself forward on this.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Because nobody else will.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I would appreciate it if you stopped implying that I somehow set back your efforts to work cooperatively, because that is not the case.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I am not implying that you "set" anything "back", that is not at all visible in what I have said, and I'll thank you not to suggest I implied it.

I am saying that your attitude then was totally contrary to your attitude now, and you are not explaining that. Is that clear or am I talking past you?

As for people keeping silent so as not to incur the wrath of the gnomes....???

Are you serious? What wrath? Where? Who is feeling intimidated? Are you suggesting there's a gnome posse out to shoot down the baddies? Are you completely out of your senses?

We have been told we are silent (see Nomad and others). That is interpreted as proof of "private e-mails" and a hidden agenda. But we are also told we are bullying people into silence. I have become increasingly silent as I'm not sure what to say that will not be interpreted as wrong in some way. The simple fact of being a "front-pager" at the moment is warrant for suspicion.

So: I'm in favour of a cooperative structure with a European base and server. I agree the Scoop software could do things better. I have already said these things elsewhere (so I have not remained totally silent).

However, I don't think there is such urgency in all this as to justify your current attitude, and I don't think you're succeeding in making a case for either urgency or attitude.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

That was then and this is now, and that was the issue of cooperative working and this is the issue of the management of the site. What is there to explain?

As for people keeping silent so as not to incur the wrath of the gnomes....???

Shocked, aren't you? Well, I think we have some serious breakdown of communication on the site.

Are you serious? What wrath? Where? Who is feeling intimidated? Are you suggesting there's a gnome posse out to shoot down the baddies? Are you completely out of your senses?

Do I have to write another one-paragraph diary asking people to come out of the woodwork on this, too? Look, I am not saying the gnomes have not been misunderstood, I am just telling you there are valued contributors who don't want to voice their opinions publicly for fear of, yes, the gnomes. Which part of

I have also been busy disabusing people of the notion that this is somehow or at all to do with the gnomes

did you not understand?

I am also not trying to make a case to you as to urgency or attitude, you're the one who's making this an issue of urgency and attitude. I have agreed it is not urgent

It's not vital to make it urgent right now, but it's been festering for 6 weeks. So it might just as well have blown over right now as a week ago as two weeks from now

by which I mean, among other things, that regardless of when this issue had blown up, you would have still confronted me with "why now"?, which is emphatically not the point as I did not choose the timing of this.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

So secret emails have been circulating of people complaining about the gnomes?

Damn.

I just joked that the French are right ot behave arrogantly, because whether they do or not they are treated as if they were arrogant, so they might as well enjoy the good sides of it. Same thing here. We should behave like a clique if we're going to be thought to be one anyway...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Of course you are not a clique, and nor should you behave like one.

I am sure you don't believe that people exchanging views offline is a new phenomenon? There's been all sorts of stuff been whizzing about virtually and vertically - music, games, arrangements, assistance, advice - whatever. It is a community after all.

The fact that a few friends and colleagues felt that these recent exchanges were more aptly kept between themselves is only a reflection of the perceived atmosphere here.

I initiated one of these discussions myself, after noticing a similar feel of frustration in various contributors with whom I communicate directly. So I clearly stand behind what Migu has been saying, although not always with the way he says it ;-) But mostly with the way he says it too.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

By those that read the provocative comments that you and Migeru so love to make to stir things up?

I personally don't mind that attitude, but don't blame us for perceptions that you do everything you can to create, because you enjoy the show.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

I'm out of here.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know (none / 0)

this is not yet a democracy, so you can't decide these things on your own. I don't agree, so your request is denied.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (none / 0)

Ha ha fucking ha.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, well (none / 1)

You have to be able to tolerate some sarcasm and critical comment about yourself if you want others to tolerate the same from you.

I remind you that this all started with a comment of yours that basically stated that Colman has cheated you by extracting money from you and then not changing the code of ET when you requested it. It ended up generating useful discussion, but it was an outrageous comment.

So consistency requires that you either tone down your comments (which I don't personally think is necessary) or that you accept to be a target yourself once in a while.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:47:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, well (none / 0)

You misread my comment, I don't think Colman did.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, well (none / 0)

Look, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your comment and put an undeserved '2' rating. The fact that I wrote this diary should be taken in any case as a good faith attempt by me to clear the air. Of course, it's up to you to say if it did, but I honestly tried.

As to Colman's reaction, I think he hasn't been around at all since your comment, so we'll see when he gets back...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, well (none / 1)

No, I've been off-line all week-end. I'm sorely tempted to go back off-line now.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, well (4.00 / 2)

Look, I bring to your attention that there is a serious breakdown of communication on the site, and what do I get? Snark about cliques, democracy, and character assassination. You are not listening.

Signed: Bob the angry lighning rod.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, well (4.00 / 2)

It was an easy enough misreading: it was only my sweet and loveable disposition that prevented me reading it that way as well. :-)

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

I'm gonna stick myself in the middle of this pie fest (splat! splat!) and say to you Jerome that in a comment somewhere in this diary (there are pictures of a dulcimer and a pyramid in it) I have asked you a series of specific questions. Are you not going to answer them? It is the silence in the face of specific questions that has me wondering what the situation is.

I'd tell myself you didn't read my comment, but you commented on it specifically to point out my one mis-attribution. As for the rest...you didn't comment. Maybe I no makea ze sense to you, Jerome? But can you see how this creates a sense of circling round and round a centre of strange silence? Hence, I think, some of the frustrations mentioned, and, well, why did you point out my misatttibution (which I think, though misattributed summed up a certain tone of yours...(the "I can't do anything without Booman's say so" kind of arguments)...but anyway, I made specific points and said where your inputs (your not very time consuming inputs) were needed. It may well have taken you longer to read and reply to Migeru's attacks than to answer the questions that Migeru's attacks (if I understand them correctly) have been trying to get from you.

So, why don't you answer the questions which you posted this diary to deal with?

And, yeah, yeah, we can go round and round with this. You say, "Hus? I wasn't aware," etc... But you read my comment (otherwise how could you comment on one attribution in the centre of it.)

Anyway, I now duck back out of the pie fight and offer you, Jerome, a llama.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 04:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

Some responses need more time than I have. The quick stuff I can do in drive-by mode (like now, in the middle of other frantic things). The substantive, not so much. Sorry if I miss stuff. Just ask me again if it's important. I'm not usually avoiding topics.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 04:33:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

Here is a simple question you can answer, I hope, in drive-by mode.

Jerome, I think this is an example of something no one but you can do: get the tech. details from Booman. Are you happy to do this?

Yes? No?

If your answer is Yes

Could you give us a rough idea of timescales involved for you to contact Booman and get a response? (Days? Weeks? Months? Years?)

(I'd suggest you request individuals to volunteer to take this forward IF you get the info. So you don't even have to ask for the info if you don't get any volunteers.

(Before you ask, I'll take this forward, so you have at least one volunteer ;)

If your answer is No

Are you happy to delegate this task to someone else?

See what I mean? These don't seem long and complicated questions. Even on a drive-by the answers should leap to your mind quickly...no?

Zis is why I sink I no makea ze sense or have got everything Rs over tyttwize (an old gnomish expression.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 06:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (4.00 / 4)

I can get that information. In fact, I've just realised I have it: that must be why I'm sure that Booman isn't getting ripped off. It's a dedicated server on decent bandwidth with a reputable supplier.

It's also not all that important until the political/organisational issues are dealt with.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 06:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

It's also not all that important until the political/organisational issues are dealt with.

I bow out at this point...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 07:40:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perceived by whom? (none / 0)

Just temporarily: we need a little breathing space I think.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 07:42:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now that (none / 1)

comment seems uncalled for, particularly your first sentence. It is also the first (and only) post taking up the word "blame". Let's not walk that path. Please.

The core of evil is a lack of empathy

by Nomad on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 06:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Triangulation (none / 1)

and indirect communication is always very bad.

I think some of the responses have been a bit too vehement, and I don't feel a need to have a go at Jerome or the Gnomes for being persecutory or Gnomey - or whatever else it might be possible to accuse them of.

I do think the original cash-call was handled less than smoothly, and there's been a lack of clarity about funding, money and other basics. But that's mostly been resolved now, at least for the moment.

Infrastructure issues aren't currently affecting the site. But people talking about other people behind the scenes certainly seems to be.

I'm not party to secret emails, and I don't want to be a party them. Can we make it a point to discuss things that need to be discussed in public please?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 06:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is ridiculous (none / 1)

to spread a meme of 'secret' emails. They are simply emails between people who have met each other (mostly) and communicate privately. I guess you write emails every day about your work which you would regard as private.

It was simply a way of cooling things off, when Migu was sticking his neck out on behalf of others and not seeming to be getting anywhere. We still wanted to talk, but to be able to talk freely - to ensure that we were all talking about the same thing.

If there is a ban on, or a stigma attached to, emailing 'offline', then I, for one, will ignore it as an intrusion upon my rights and my freedom of speech.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 07:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is ridiculous (none / 0)

My quote above of "private e-mails" was taken verbatim from your comment here, in which you quite precisely suggested the "gnomes" were being secretive ("lack of transparency in the dealings of the gnomes") and that site management questions were being handled by "private e-mails". I'm very glad to see you now say spreading such a meme is ridiculous.

For the record: the only e-mails I was party to on the subject of site management were those Migeru was also party to.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 02:07:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is ridiculous (none / 0)

For the record: the only e-mails I was party to on the subject of site management were those Migeru was also party to.

Where's Alex when you need him? He knows all about the mystical levels of gnomery and the various coloured cloaks that demonstrate one's entree' into those extra layers where funny handshakes and strange eyebrow movements are de rigeur.

Jerome! Give afew the magic dice! He's protecting the gnomery!

;)

(Did you get my e-mail [secret conspiracy alert1]

If you did, then here's what I alluded to at the end of it.

(Ze consipracy deepens! ;)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 04:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is ridiculous (none / 0)

I did get your croissant e-mail and want to reply before this gnome's magic computer bites the dust. I'm getting problems with my settings and think I need to change the CMOS battery. After eight years it's about time...

So: until this weekend (and at the time of Sven's comment) the only e-mails re site management I was party to were those Migeru was also party to. It is important, in my view. But of course, some people may 'ave ze contrary perception, n'est-ce pas?

(I stole the magic dice from Colman's Den down the bottom of what we call the Badger's Hole. How did you get the picture? CCTV?)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 04:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is ridiculous (none / 0)

How did you get the picture?

I have my spies...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alex (in French): (none / 0)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 04:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is ridiculous (none / 0)

If there is a ban on, or a stigma attached to, emailing 'offline', then I, for one, will ignore it as an intrusion upon my rights and my freedom of speech.

Of course there is a stigma associated with it. I have been involved in a phenomenal amount of off-site e-mail and I don't like it one bit because when it leaks onto the site, as it is guaranteed to do, it tends to be toxic. I also don't like it when stuff that is written on the site results in private e-mail, because it signals a breach of trust.

I am on record at least once saying e-mail-to-blog crossover makes me feel filthy. I tend not to initiate off-site email exchanges about the site [and I don't say "I don't initiate" because I know the PN brigade is ready to call me a liar, with evidence, if I do].

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 02:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For the record (none / 0)

the only reason some discussions were kept off the site is that there are third parties involved (Booman and Andy) who had not waived their rights to confidentiality. I have no right to decide on my own to put things of concern to them in the public domain without their consent.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 1)

Shocked, aren't you?

No. I think it's bullshit.

Which part of

I have also been busy disabusing people of the notion that this is somehow or at all to do with the gnomes
did you not understand?

The part that goes just before this quote, in which you repeat the accusation that "gnomes" are silencing people.

regardless of when this issue had blown up, you would have still confronted me with "why now"?

I'm not asking you so much "why now?" as why is it so urgent to discuss it in this manner, with this degree of acrimony? Why must this issue be pushed with such heat and (Sven has told us how important perception is, and how "appearances" were against "the management"), apparent desire to take things into your own hands (see in particular your call for programmers to work on Scoop software)?

But I think you give your answer at the beginning of your comment:

That was then and this is now, and that was the issue of cooperative working and this is the issue of the management of the site. What is there to explain?

You will not explain why your attitude on questions of method and form concerning the Scoop platform has radically changed in three months; and you admit that what you are interested in is the management of the site. That is what you consider urgent, and the agitation about the need for tweaks to Scoop is a pretext. Which is what I was driving at at the beginning of this exchange.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 02:39:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 1)

You're free to think it's bullshit. In fact, you're free to ignore everything I've been saying.

People are not being silenced by the gnomes, they feel silenced by the gnomes. You can get all self-righteous and say it's their own damn fault for feeling that way.

The degree of acrimony is not my fault. The general degree of acrimony has been on the rise recently, and it has to do with this gnomes thing you think is bullshit. Now you'll say I've been agitating with secret e-mails so as to raise the level of acrimony, etc etc.

I am still trying to come up with a way to answer to your last paragraph without causing even more acrimony.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 02:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

The general degree of acrimony has been on the rise recently, and it has to do with this gnomes thing you think is bullshit.

I'm just entering this mad discussion with only one sub-thread read, but I have to flag this: the rise of the general degree of acrimony included the rise of acrimony between gnomes (say most recently poemless-Jérôme), so methinks you are over-generalising an idea of your own.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Oct 25th, 2006 at 02:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

There is no "acrimony" between poemless and Jerome. Well, not coming from poemless's end anyway.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed Oct 25th, 2006 at 03:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 1)

I need a dictionary...

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Oct 25th, 2006 at 04:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

The dictionary didn't help much - the translation is what I thought it to be, but maybe I'm missing nuances. Is "acrimony" not applicable to your outburst on what you cannot talk about due to groupthink, and Jérôme's reply to your train safety diary?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Oct 25th, 2006 at 04:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Your usage seems perfect to me.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 25th, 2006 at 04:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

Agreed. When I said "has to do with" I should have said "it's related to" because otherwise it can be interpreted as a causal relationship (though the direction is ambiguous).

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 25th, 2006 at 04:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

There are several cases rcently of hasty 2's. I have been 2'd by Jerome this past week for using a phrase that a person objected to, even though that same person used the same phrase themselves 2 days later.

As I said elsewhere, it is about perceptions.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

afew (4.00 / 2)

That stings, afew. For the record: In our particular exchange, I have not interpreted the absence of frontpagers as some dark collusion between them and I eplicitly made that clear later. But the moment the topic was broached - my speaking out and the resulting discussion may have well become counter-productive for the whole reason why I spoke out in the first place! And I regret that immensely, it was communication break-down at work, because the pretense was set that tabling the absence of frontpagers equaled suspicions of a hidden agenda. And this has festered its way throughout the community since then. That's how I look at it in hindsight.

The whole point of that discussion was to get everyone talking, not subdued... It failed miserably.

The core of evil is a lack of empathy

by Nomad on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 03:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: afew (4.00 / 2)

I'm sorry to read this, Nomad, because I feel nothing for you but respect and friendship.

Let me just explain this, though, about what you quote above: I was not attributing to you the "interpretation" about a "hidden agenda", simply citing you as one who had said front-pagers were too silent. (Migeru linked to your comment higher up). And I didn't mean to bash you by doing so.

I'm sorry if my comments were hurtful in that exchange (I've been told by others that they were). I have just read them again, though, and don't see what is so excessive about them. I'd like you to understand that I felt hurt. Not by anything excessive in your comments, but by the supposition there was some kind of negative groupthink in a group that wasn't even inter-communicating about the subject.

As to "the pretense was set that tabling absence of frontpagers equaled suspicions of a hidden agenda" I don't think that's fair to what I in fact said (a thinly-veiled suspicion (or beginning of suspicion) that there was a plot in the upper spheres, that we were all toeing the line, or I don't know what), and I don't think pretense is fair either: there has been suspicion of this kind.

But I'm sorry, really sorry, about the misunderstanding between us.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 04:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: afew (4.00 / 2)

Thank you afew.

I'm not butch enough to say that the exchange then didn't affect me. Also, I can recognise karma when I see it - it was pretty clear to me you were hurt, which had simply not been my intention. I was frustrated when I posted; showering offense had not been part of the plan. And I was - and am - sorry that this happened anyway between the two of us. Especially while I still owe you a chunk of chocolate cake... So I hope that with this the air is clear.

Now, one more time a word about pretenses, because I think it is of importance for the current discussion. I know you didn't wrote what I used - yet it is the meme now. You wrote that there have been suspicions, but were they there before our little spat? Did our exchange embolden the idea, put flesh to a thought what was otherwise just figment? I'm not so much interested in answers - whatever the case, I fear the meme grew by vitue of our exchange, and I am very much afraid it either initiated suspicions or boosted previous ones if they were there.

But it splattered in the open now and I think there are important lessons to take away from. I do watch with a sad eye the certain ferocity of the exchanges with Migeru - because he's been sticking out his neck to such a degree it's getting a stretch. I couldn't be there on Sunday, I had a postnatal babyshower.

And now I need a drink.

The core of evil is a lack of empathy

by Nomad on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 06:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: afew (none / 1)

Well, I'll gladly renounce the defence of... I was going to say the gnomes, but it's not up to me to say that... I'll say myself. Because it's not important.

But I think questions of community structure and organisation, which are important, need time to be fully hashed out and achieve consensus. I don't think anything useful can be accomplished in an atmosphere of agitation. And I don't see why it's so urgent to take over the server and tweak site organisation, especially since it apparently wasn't not long ago.

I sincerely hope the air is clearer between us. But there remains a little matter of chocolate pie... ;)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Oct 24th, 2006 at 01:41:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All right (4.00 / 3)

I think you and I put the nuances slightly different looking back at this. As the time management matrix of Stephen Covey says, I don't think the requested site change itself was an urgent matter, but an important matter. Whereas the agitation about the possibilities of site change had become increasingly urgent - and has hopefully largely been solved.

I do agree that there needs to be a consensus for some proposed changes, which will need the necessary time to nurture. I don't think that was the major obstacle - the major obstacle was to get confirmation to what extent proposed changes were possible within the current framework of ET.

And now to the negotiations of chocolate pie... :)

The core of evil is a lack of empathy

by Nomad on Tue Oct 24th, 2006 at 08:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

There are other ways besides slandering people (Colman, in that case) to get a conversation started.

I did not even know that Colman could not do all he wanted to do. Did you ever check that fact with me?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 12:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (none / 1)

Why don't we wait for Colman to come back from his horses?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 01:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

On the "2" rating: please don't make me laugh.

The ET user who has most often decided to "Warn" other regular and well-known contributors because of her/his tone in a comment is almost certainly Migeru.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 01:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 1)

Touche.

In any case, if Jerome wrote this diary which everyone seems to be grateful for, it was because of that snappy comment of mine.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 01:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I don't think you can be sure of that at all.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I am sorry I once gave you a 2.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 01:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (none / 0)

I wasn't the only one, which was my point.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (4.00 / 2)

To be fair, Booman has tried to get traffic stats but no-one was collecting the info. Sort of difficult. I don't believe Booman has much technical know-how either: slightly more than Jérôme, but that's not hard.

As to getting admin rights to machines: I'll take those reluctantly if the people originally involved: Andy, Booman and Jérôme are willing to give them to me. It will then take a long time for anything much to happen as I work out exactly what to do and how to do it!

It would be nice if people would remember that in addition to having to find stories for the front-page and writing on the site we all have other lives as well - horses, families, jobs, studies, whatever - and sometimes it is just difficult to make time for things that, while important, are not perceived to be urgent.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:42:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gah (4.00 / 2)

Hey, step right over into the "talent" diary and recruit yourself a team to do the heavy lifting.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I welcome this restatement (4.00 / 4)

I wish to point out though, as ever, that it is all about perceptions.

If it is perceived by the ordinary (and extraordinary) contributors that:

important questions and debates are apparently ignored by all levels above 'ordinary member'
clear indications of frustration remain unaddressed
initiatives for activism outside of the apparent energy/economics focus of the site are apparently unsupported

THEN conclusions may be drawn that are inappopriate. Innuendo can only exist where information (and support) is withheld.

Frustration can lead to snark - which helps nobody, if bitterly presented.

Regarding improvements to the site, there have been many suggested over the last 12 months. Some have been implemented (wikis etc) But many of them cannot be implemented because they all butt up against the same problem - no access to the code.

I do not know if we have the skills (and time) here to take over the code. Perhaps donations could be collected to pay for such efforts.

But the main problem IMO in discussing site improvements is in expectations. If it appears that we cannot expect any future change in the relationship between J, Booman and Andy, then there seems little point in discussing hypothetical changes. A lot of the frustration felt stems from this.

The Medium is the Message.

On the other hand, we should remember that blogging is a relatively new phenomenon, and that there are no established rules for developing or running a site. We all make it up as we go along. An important corollary of this is that the expertise, such as it is, is not vested in the owners of a particular site. The expertise is in all of us.

The advantage for owners is that they have more detailed knowledge of the capabilities of a particular bit of software, an overview of the financial situation, and are able to track the effects of changes (technical or content)

The question therefore is whether greater transparency could allow the embedded expertise of the members to make a greater contribution - or not. And whether the exposure of such 'commercial' information could damage the site or any of the members - ordinary or not.

A more important statement from J would concern his aims for ET, from a content point of view.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 05:56:18 AM EST

I'm only human (4.00 / 7)

I have zero competence on the technical side, and I personally don't even know if some of the suggestions that have been made can actually be implemented. If anybody on the site knows, or wants to explore the question, I will welcome the initiative
I am committing a lot of my time to the site, and writing about the things I know about. I welcome, and indeed encourage, efforts to write about other things but cannot be expected to contribute content on topics I'm less familiar with and simply don't have time for, practicalyl speaking. I have never said that ET's name should not be used for collective initiatives, but you cannot expect me or the other frontpagers to do the work for you if you have a topic which is dear to you. Just do it. I'll support the process as I can. Lack of participation on my side does not mean lack of support.
Changes to the ownership structure can only happen when we know what we'll go towards. You seem to think at the same time that it should not be the "leadership" that decides, but that nothing can happen without said leadership. This is incoherent. Come up with a concrete proposal (built or) supported by enough members and we'll implement it. I just don't have the time to think about this right now, and the site seems to be working for now, so I won't initiate things there. See the point above: if you want to change things, do it. I've said that I was sympathetic to some of the goals that have been expressed (no ads, community supported and run website, server in Europe). I just will not push it myself, because I can't, simply.

As to my aims for ET, it is to make it a voice that is heard in European political debates. That will come if we manage to concentrate enough quality writing, and attract a big enough readership to be noticed, or because we "agitate" with the relevant power entities via public contributions, papers or other. I'm not sure how to get there, as for myself, beyond my writing, my opening up the site to all comers, and supporting initiatives of the community.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 06:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm only human (4.00 / 6)

Come up with a concrete proposal (built or) supported by enough members and we'll implement it.

As to my aims for ET, it is to make it a voice that is heard in European political debates. That will come if we manage to concentrate enough quality writing, and attract a big enough readership to be noticed, or because we "agitate" with the relevant power entities via public contributions, papers or other. I'm not sure how to get there, as for myself, beyond my writing, my opening up the site to all comers, and supporting initiatives of the community.

As the current owner (or what it should be called) of this site you have an implicite veto over the process, therefore this input from you is exactly what is needed. Now we know that trying to form a more participatory organisation is not a pointless exercise.

On a more personal note I have found that if people view you as a leader (wheter elected or otherwise) you have to explicitly abdicate most of the time to keep from gathering power and responsability. Decentralised structures does not snap into place without some serious work, especially from those who leads during the process. Part of that work is abdicating frequently.

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 10:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm only human (none / 0)

Part of that work is abdicating frequently.

A valuable insight. I guess I have been too busy even to do that.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 11:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Transparency (4.00 / 3)

Booman and I have a formal financial interest which, as described before, is slightly negative (i.e. the site costs more than it brings in), something neither of us ever complained about.

The problems started when BooMan - if not exactly complained, stated clearly that the site needed an extra revenue stream. Colman then passed around the hat. Which was entirely sensible in the short term, but hasn't solved the problem in the longer term.

What happens a year from now? Will there be another collection plate?

These may seem like a 'long term, non-urgent goal for the site' but shouldn't they be made a short-term, more urgent goal?

The problem isn't technical. I don't think there's a lot wrong with the coding of the site, and I don't expect changes to be made to suit my whims.

But currently it seems to be that BooMan is the one who's getting suckered by paying far more for hosting than he needs to, and he's coming to us, cap in hand, to sort this out. And if the hosting question isn't answered, this will be repeated indefinitely.

It's not even about Atlanticist hosting politics. ET spends a lot of its time discussing economics, and it shouldn't be a stretch for the site to be run in an economically intelligent way.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 07:29:48 AM EST

BooMan (none / 1)

I don't think he came to ask for money (unless my memory fails). In any case, he has a written guarantee from me to cover all costs up to an agreed amount, and it is my intention to cover these costs in all cases unless we actually put up another arrangement in place.

So for me it's a non-issue.

My understanding of the call for money was that a few people wanted to show their support to the site in a concrete manner. I'm personally more interested in more compelling content (whether diaries or comments) than in money, but as I said, I'll be happy to switch to a collectively owned structure if a viable proposal emerges. I will NOT take the initiative of it because it's not needed and I simply don't have the time, but I will support a viable proposition that coems forward because I agree with many of the underlying principles that have been put forward. Just don't expect me to do it.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 09:16:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan (4.00 / 3)

I think people wanted to show their support in a concrete manner because:

It wasn't clear who was paying for what, and how much the site was making or losing.
When BooMan arrived he did say, quite explicitly, that the site wasn't supporting itself and needed some extra income from somewhere.

Now, if you're saying you're happy to cover Mr Boo up to $X a year and if we want to contribute it should be in the form of content and diaries rather than cash, that's a clear enough statement - although it could possibly have been made earlier to prevent confusion.

As for hosting - it's actually impossible for us to organise alternative hosting until we know the current arrangements and what the detailed requirements will be.

Moving to a euro-host is more or less a trivial move technically, but there's no point in trying to set up alternative hosting unless we know that full server-side access is available, and have access to even basic information like how big the site is, what the bandwidth requirements are, and how much it's growing annually - information which currently doesn't seem to be available.

And ideally - since it's still effectively your site - that it's something you have either have no objection to or actively support.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 10:42:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan (4.00 / 2)

Understood. I don't mind paying, and am not asking for anyone else to pay, but I won't block it! And as there was discussion on putting that on a more regular footing (including community ownership) it made sense.

As to the technical requirements, it's just that I don't have the information myself, and wouldn't even know what to ask.

I WILL support a community-organised, Europe-based structure.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 11:31:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan (4.00 / 3)

That is said as clearly as needed. It is now up to us all to take the discussion forward in the most constructive way possible - without deadlines, only knowing that it would be possible to implement it, should a good viable solution be found.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 11:50:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan (none / 1)

I don't think they are paying over the odds for what I believe is a dedicated server (or possibly two - not quite sure!).

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:47:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan (4.00 / 2)

I don't think Jerome understands the power that a dedicated server gives him (or whoever he delegates to). It means almost unlimited flexibility.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 23rd, 2006 at 05:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan (4.00 / 2)

Technically it's over the odds for a dedicated box by about 50-75%. Prices here start at around £20/month for 50GB/month - £35/month for 100GB. And so on.

A dedicated server is still significant