I am writing to respond to the various remarks Chi made "in his defence"
last week. His actions have certainly stirred things up, the list hasn't
been this busy for some considerable time. I sincerely hope that this
entire matter can ultimately benefit ProgSoc and beg the indulgence of
those who are still reading to cope with the flood of email for about
another 10 days.
This article is lengthy, but addresses each of the issues that Chi has
raised. I encourage everyone to spend the 20 minutes or so that it will
take to read this.
Thanks.
Tomorrow I'll deal with specific questions that others have asked.
--Before I respond to Chi's defence I'd like to clear something up. Lots of members of ProgSoc have attitudes and opinions relating to what Chi and company did at the AGM. Several people have spoken against the current Executive and many others have spoken for it. HOWEVER, there appears to be a little confusion as to who the Exective actually is and who can speak for it. The official place for this is under http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/about but in summary,
President: Dennis Clarke, dbugger@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au Vice President: Roland Turner, raz@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au Secretary: Peter Lees, peterl@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au Treasurer: Cam Dorrington, cam@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au CSO: Anton Blanchard, anton@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au
This is the entire Executive. Anyone else who speaks in support of the current Exective's is stating their own opinion, not neccessarily that of the Executive, nor neccessarily not that of the Executive.
Please keep this in mind. Some of the articles that have appeared on the list over the last few days have claimed all sorts of things about the current Executive which are in fact attributable to other members.
--Chi wrote:
> I just found out the current situation in regards to my > intentions of being elected in the executive committee and > I am abhorred to say the least at the tactics being used > against me.
The only tactic that you mention is my posting for all members a summary of what the Executive knows about what actually occurred at the AGM and what you were attempting. This was done at the request of several members who were a bit stunned at what had occurred and a much larger number who weren't at the AGM.
> Firstly, I am extremely surprised that Raz has > posted an entire web page dedicated to my intentions WITHOUT > even giving me a chance to defend myself and allowing me to > give my side of the story. After the debacle of the previous > AGM, I gave Roland the chance to hear my intentions and plans > and I was under the assumption that if anything happens, then we > would notify each other, but alas, that does not appear to be > the case.
This was written on about the Saturday after the AGM. The AGM was on a Thursday. Lots of people were asking on Friday what had happened and, on behalf of the Executive, I undertook to make the membership aware of as much as the Executive knew before the end of Friday.
The timing and the need for quick action was brought on by Chi, who attempted his takeover without notice. I will of course keep Chi (and in fact the entire membership) informed, but as Vice President, my obligation to the membership as a whole exceeds my obligation to any one member.
No slight was intended, this was simply responsible behaviour on the part of the Executive.
> Let me start by explaining my intentions when I attended the > AGM. Contrary to the defaming article written by Roland
I do not believe that the article ( http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/save_progsoc.html for thse who haven't read it) is at all defamatory. At each step, I was careful to state only the facts as I understood them.
There has been a single change where your recollection of a conversation differes substantially from my own. Apart from that, nothing that you or anyone else has raised could be construed to be defamatory - it is just a description of what happened.
> (Hey Roland, have I ever written anything that personally > attacked you??),
Nope. Nor have I attacked you. Please understand that ProgSoc's membership wanted the Executive to explain what was going on, so I did.
> I DO NOT intend to take over progsoc for > the sake of the MUD.
This is at odds with your message inside your own Mud, but perhaps you were simplifying the facts for the benefit of people who you expected to see that message?
> I do however, intend to lead progsoc > into a different direction from what the current committee > had steered us.
Nothing that you have suggested represents a change in direction, merely an increase in activity, mostly or entirely along the lines of activities that ProgSoc has carried out before.
Setting direction is NOT the role of the Executive anyway, it is the role of the membership. The Executive's role is to maintain progSoc's existence and its key external relationships and to oversee its activities.
Finally, involving ProgSoc in additional activity does NOT require a wholesale replacement of the Executive, it simply requires that you volunteer to do things. Naturally if you are planning to volunteer to do something, it would be wise to tell the Executive about it.
> And to the rumour mongers out there, I DO > NOT want to shut down Forest or any other talkers for that > matter!! I believe this is a malicious campaign to discredit > me
No, it is just a concern amongst the vast majority of ProgSoc members whom you did not consult before attempting to "take over". When you attempt to seize control of an organisation, with telling the membership about your plans, it is only natural that people will assume that you have something to hide and are therefore not to be trusted.
> as was the article written by Roland.
There was nothing malicious in my article. I was asked to tell people what I knew, so I did. To have refused to do so would have been inappropriate.
> In fact, my policy > is to ENCOURAGE programming talent, and what better way to > stimulate this than to support MUDs, Talkers and other > MOOs???
This is excellent, is entirely compatible with ProgSoc's objectives and, given that we have just (about) made a machine available for Muds, well timed. We could use some enthusiastic people to get things moving.
> For those that have been involved in these > creative endeavours will realise, their programming ability > would have increased dramatically and that their hard efforts > are paid off with satisfaction from their increasing user base.
Indeed. I learnt C writing my first communication server (not quite a Mud - things were a little more primitive in 1988) for people to use. My personal project now (Jorba) is aimed at producing large scale distributed multi-user environments.
It's certainly rewarding to get such things working and this provides a strong incentive to people to produce software. It is for this reason that I have been championing the creation of a Mud machine(s) for close to two years.
> Now I should turn my attention to the particular events that > happened in the AGM. When my supporters and I arrived for the > meetingwe saw people were still registering their names. > I then said to Roland we were planning to register as well. > He said fine, but after I told him the numbers that were > planning to register at that time, he said he will go and > photocopy more forms.
A lapse of reason. Sorry about that. When I saw a crowd of unfamiliar people arrive, I have to say that I was thrilled. All of a sudden it seemed, people were becoming interested in running ProgSoc. Little did I know.
> The moment he came back, he said > the meeting is called off and there will be NO MORE > registrations.
??
I certainly did not state that the meeting was called off.
We were a little pressed for time. The intent had been that we call the meeting to order at 6:10 or 6:15 (thus allowing a few minutes to renew memberships for those few who had neglected to do so ahead of time). What I realised was that if we tried to process renewal for the entire groups that you had showed up with (20 people?) we would have been out of time to hold the meeting itself. So, my first thought was to simply get the meeting over with so my intent was to call the meeting to order at that time.
Had I done this, all of those people who hadn't renewed (and whose memberships had therefore expired a 6:00pm) would not have had voting rights at the meeting at all.
> He also said to me that the meeting has already > started and we cannot vote. Five minutes after this, he called > the meeting to COMMENCE (even though he said he had already > started the meeting) and promptly ADJOURNED the meeting.
Now you are getting confusing. You claim that I said the meeting was called off, and that it was in progress, and then called it to order? I suspect that, because you were talking (in fact yelling) over me, you couldn't hear what I was saying and thus failed to understand me.
You pointed out to me that all of these other people who had turned up should be allowed a vote (not in so many words). This struck me as a good point, but difficult to arrange given that they weren't financial members and that we were out of time. What was then done, to give yourself and the group that you arrived with the ability to vote, was as follows:
- Dennis called the meeting to order - A pair of motions to bring about an adjournment were put and carried unanimously by those who had voting rights at that point in time. - The meeting was adjourned
In fact, it wasn't until 20 minutes later that I became aware of your intention to replace the Executive.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED *SPECIFICALLY* SO THAT YOU AND THE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT YOU ARRIVED WITH WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE.
That was the entire reason for doing so. Had we not adjourned, you and your group simply would not have had voting rights because, by the time the meeting was called to order, the membership renewals would not have been processed.
I'm sorry that this was not clear to you at that time.
> He then > told me that the meeting will be adjourned to next week, but now > I have been notified that the next meeting will be postponed AGAIN!
The motion as it was worded created a constitutional problem. The adjourned meeting was delayed to bring it into line with constitutional advance notice requirements.
> I have not started out trying to discredit others, but when > I am being villified on the progsoc web page without my > chance of saying my version, then I think it is very > sad indictment of the current situation.
No evidence of vilification has been presented at all. I reported the facts as I understood them. You have the same opportunity to respond as anybody else does: post to the membership via progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
You created the situtation where there was no time for advance notice, drafting, etc. Please deal with it.
> I am not trying to > counterclaim what has happened, merely stating the facts > of the events, with numerous witnesses to back up my account.
Apart from some minor misunderstandings on your part, you have not provided any evidence that my account was incorrect, just a lot of noise and handwaving.
> As to the scare tactics of several people claiming that > my establishment into the committee will destabilise progsoc > and lead to the confiscating of progsoc equipment, > have you got your facts straight??
I don't recall seeing any such claims. ProgSoc owned equipment will certainly not be "confiscated" by anybody.
More importantly however, ProgSoc depends on the goodwill and trust of various SoCS people. The moment the Executive does not have the complete trust of these people, ProgSoc will lose its Internet connection. A takeover of the Executive of the type attempted by Chi and co. (an attempt to replace the entire Executive by stacking an AGM, without any advance notice to the membership) would severely limit the degree to which such an Executive would be trusted and, if the take over was viewed sufficiently poorly, would lead to the immediate disconnection of ProgSocNet.
This is not wild speculation, nor is it a threat, nor is it a scare tactic. It is a statement of fact.
THIS IS THE SOLE REASON THAT THE CURRENT EXECUTIVE IS OPPOSED TO HAVING CHI TAKE OVER THE EXECUTIVE IN THE MANNER THAT HE PLANNED. WE ARE NOT CLINGING TO POWER, WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID SERIOUS DAMAGE TO PROGSOC.
In fact, we welcome new blood into the Executive. Dennis is not standing for a position this year and I won't be next year. We urgently need to find new people who are willing to put time, effort and ideas into the running of ProgSoc, and for that, your interest is welcomed, however it is not a Good Thing to attempt to seize control.
> When I said I was planning to take over the committee, > I truly believed I had the support of all my peers.
You haven't defined the term peer. If you mean the group that you turned up with, well no doubt you did, but that is kind of irrelevant. PogoSoc consists of close to 500 people. Your group of 20 who have no prior involvement in the running of ProgSoc are not representative of the wishes of the membership at large.
If by peers you meant the entire membership, then you are sadly mistaken. You didn't even try to tell the membership what you were doing. You certainly did not have their support. Chi, you weren't even subscribed to the ProgSoc mailing list. You have absolutely no idea what is going on within ProgSoc.
> I wanted > to lead the committee because I believed I had the time and > resources to spend to further our society.
I'm not sure that I believe this, even if you do. You and your group claimed to not have had time to be on campus during the day to renew your memberships prior to the AGM. How can you possibly claim to have the time to run ProgSoc?
Additionally, the furthering of ProgSoc does NOT require membeship of the Executive. In some respects it is stifled by it because simply running the Society and its network consumes a vast amount of time.
> Who in the past year > have received replies from the committee that they have not had > the time to address a particular concern of yours? What about > the time when the hard drives were full and we could not save > or write anything to our accounts? How long did that take to fix > up?
You do not have the knowledge or the manpower to improve situations such as this.
ProgSoc does not employ full time admins. ProgSoc administered machines are administered on a best-effort basis. If solving a problem takes days (or weeks or months), then that's how long it takes. Members wishing to build more reliable services are welcome to install and maintain their own machines.
> And addressing to the Talkers' Society, you realise how much > work and effort is involved in improving your particular talker. > You also realise that if less time is spent on the talker/mud > then stagnation occurs and the vibrancy and energy within that > community slowly deteriorates.
Indeed. I'm not sure I follow your point though. Multi-participant environments require maintenance, whether they are UNIX, a Mud, or whatever.
> Let me assure the Forest users, > I do NOT and HAVE NOT ever intended to shut down any talkers > or muds, and if that particular accuser speak up publicy so > people would know who you are.
I don't believe that anyone has accused you of planning to do such a thing. Rather, several hundred ProgSoc members whom you did NOT warn about (nor gain support for) your take over plans are deeply concerned about what you intend.
If you did not have plans that are bad for the rest of the membership then you would have had no reason to hide take over attempt. The fact that you did hide it clearly implies that you have an intention that you felt that people would not be happy with. In the absence of facts, people can only speculate about what you might have in mind.
In fact, I suspect that you do *NOT* have any evil intent, rather that you do not have any experience in managing an organisation of this size and it simply didn't occur to you to discuss your problem with the membership and/or the Executive.
This however, is quite a leap of faith and I know for a fact that many other members are unwilling to trust you after what you tried to do.
Personally, I trust your intent, just not your ability, so I propose to involve you in a way which will benefit you, me and ProgSoc, without damaging anything.
A further thought: No matter how good your intentions, the fact that you attempted your take over for the good of ProgSoc without consulting the membership highlights your inexperience in the management of an organisation and, in itself, suggests very strongly that it would be BAD to have you replace the entire Exceutive. If you've upset most of the membership by accident, imagine how much damage you could do to ProgSoc's external relationships, by accident. As stated above, this is the ONE thing that we are trying to avoid. You are WELCOME to the "power" and the responsibility involved in running ProgSoc, just not at the cost of ProgSoc's stability.
> What I'd like to know is, WHY would > I want to do that? If my campaign was to shut down talkers, how > could I then justify continuing my MUD??? How could I then > support my own philosophy that talkers/muds increase and > encourage programming talents???
You would have difficulty supporting this rationally, but given that you made a surprise take over attempt, it is apparent that you don't make a habit of explaining your decisions to people that they affect.
> So, when I attended the AGM, I wanted to improve what > valuable resources we have here. I understand each > community within progsoc is a boiling pot of activity > and intrigue, and it is this particular constructive > energy that I am hoping to increase.
Cool. I am actually really thrilled about this. To see someone willing to get involved is GREAT.
> Already I am causing > a stir of activity within the current committee, whom > believed their positions for this current year was safe.
Well actually, you are diverting time and resources from other tasks. Version 1 of the ProgSoc Administration system was to be finished by now. Instead, lots of time has been spent on communicating with the membership about your actions.
> I believe no democratic position should be safe, and that > the holding member should be actively justifying their > retention of this privelege.
Perhaps. When the vast majority of the membership is so happy with how ProgSoc runs that they feel no need to turn up to meetings or otherwise apply pressure on the Executive to change what it is doing, the organisation's focus shifts away from using democracy as a safeguard. So much so that it becomes a liability in that a tiny minority can suddenly rock the boat.
Ultimately Chi, you plus 20 friends represents a tiny minority of ProgSoc. You have used entirely valid techniques to dramatically upset what was a comfortable arrangement, not only for the Exectuive but but for several hundred members. The "active defence" and "non-safety" argument is valid where there is (or may be) corruption and where there is a great deal of political activity. In ProgSoc's case, the time investment required to run it is so much greater than what could be gained by corrupt behaviour that this is just not a risk, and until March 20, there was no political problem within ProgSoc. You have certainly forced ProgSoc to take another step in its evolution. This is not neccessarily good or bad, it just is.
I don't believe that ProgSoc will benefit from a great deal of political activity, but over change, this situation too may change. (Read: as it grows, political activity may in fact be valuable and corruption may become a risk, as it certainly both are for something the size of, say, a nation.)
Ironically, had it not been for one tiny error on your part (failing to renew membership in advance) you might have gotten away with it too.
> I aim to do so in this > current year, and I will have the resources to back me up.
Notwithstanding that your group apparently has trouble being on campus at all during the day to do something as simple as renewing membership.
:-)
Yeah, I'm stirring. I am genuinely concerned about this though. Please state exactly, what resources DO you have?
> Finally, I would like to say, I had talked alot with > Roland and gave him numerous of my ideas. Ideas like > programming lectures, programming competitions etc. If > my intentions cause the current committee to begin a flurry > of ideas, then at least I have done some good.
More importantly, if your actions have brought about the active involvement of more than 30 members, then yes, despite the problems that you have created, you have done good.
I hope that some of the membership will take ProgSoc a little less for granted and actually spend a little more time being involved with running ProgSoc.
(BTW - there is a giant sore spot it seems over the handling of the admin groups formed late last year. This needs explaining, and it will be explained, but I am getting tired of typing right now. I'll post again tomorrow.)
> I thank you for your time reading my message as I believe > I had my right of say. It irks me to suddenly concentrate > on what rumours abound because I deplore smear campaigns. > If there are any problems, then state so openly as I have > done so here.
I likewise thank any member who has taken the time to read this article. We are at the point where we need to communicate facts with the membership, and whilst many members on both sides of this incident feel very strongly, I also ask that problems be stated openly, smearing / insults / swearing be actively avoided and that we move forwards towards getting the new Executive put in place, regardless of its composition and get back to running ProgSoc.
Tomorrow I'll post how I propose to bring Chi into the running of ProgSoc (in short, I believe that it would be sensible to appoint him Vice President - Peter Lees has already offered him nomination andis waiting to hear back) and also answers to some of the specific questions that members have asked.
Roland Turner Vice President Programmers' Society University of technology, Sydney
{{ Unsubscription instructions here soon, really! }} You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.