>"My interests lie with keeping the services Progsoc provides available to
>the students at UTS... If that makes me "progsoc people" then so be it."
>
>later in the same message.
>
>'Once again I'm not "progsoc people"'.
>
>Sammy: make up your mind! This kind of thing does HORRORS for your
>credibility.
Since you claim this does HORRORS for my credibility I'll clarify.
My two statements above are NOT incompatible or contradictory. What I've
basically said is that I'm not worried who ends up in the exec positions as
long as they can do the job. "My interests lie with keeping the services
Progsoc provides available to the students at UTS..." I don't particularly
mind who's providing the services. It's just that after this episode, I
don't have very much confidence in "Chi's people".
When I said "if this makes me 'Progsoc people' so be it" I was being
sarcastic, and meant that I didn't believe that being "on the side" of
having Progsoc continue as successfully as it has been in terms of
providing students equipment and materials that stimulate growth of
computing knowledge and ability makes me all buddy buddy with the exec.
I don't think I can clarify any more than that. I can only hope that in
bringing this up you genuninely did misunderstand what I said and that you
were not trying to "shoot me down". I didn't think that my sarcasm would be
so difficult to understand *shrug*
>Who says? - what makes you think that everything Chi has said
>is not possible? The fact that they haven't been done before? There's a
>very old saying that springs to mind here: there's a first time for
>everything. Flight was once dismissed as fairytale, too. Dismissing
>something as unachievable is very dangerous, and generally incorrect.
No, what makes me believe Chi's statements aren't possible is his attitude
towards them. I'll have you note that many people died trying to fly. Some
had really useless contraptions that weren't ever going to fly, others had
the right idea, but not the technology at the time. Others were just plain
unlucky.
We're talking about keeping an organisation going. The entire organisation
isn't one big experiement. Innovation must be limited and managed so that
it does not do damage to the structures and processes others set in place.
We don't want to fly off a cliff in an untested flying machine.
I've never disagreed with your ideals or said that we shouldn't have
increased activity in Progsoc.
>"What you're trying to do will kill progsoc"
>How can getting all the members of progsoc involved in the society
>possibly kill it? Seems to me like we've already given it a spark of
>life, evidenced by the size of everyones ftoomsh mailbox ;)
How many times can I say this *sigh* You people aren't thinking of
consequences! The cry is "Overthrow! Overthrow!" and don't bother finding
out what it is you're overthrowing. Just a few of the flaws in it. You
can't build a better Progsoc if you don't even know that the strengths of
the current one is.
Most of the "spark" that's come about from this has been negative -
infighting, a lot of resentment from members towards each other, and a
large amount of time spent which could otherwise be employed improving
Progsoc. Here's the problem. Here's the main vain of my argument. Make sure
that the activity being produced is positive. _Some_ of what's happened
_may_ have a positive effect (I sure hope it does anyway) but if this
attempted takeover had been managed better, we might have all come away
with a lot more!
Note that the size of people's ftoomsh mailbox is not what I believe is an
indicator of progress or improvement. (If we'd been discussing a new
project or ways to code something, or even potential new events I might be
more inclined to treat it as an indicator of a new "spark" of life)
Measuring progress and improvement in a society such as Progsoc is in
itself a difficult thing, and one that takes experience. (Experience I do
not have btw. What I have at this stage of my life is an appreciation for
the need to "measure" things) It's actually more of an art than a science
so in some senses my use of the word "measure" possibly isn't appropriate.
Anyway, if an all new exec comes in it will have to pick this up too.
Mistakes can be costly, and this is why I value experience so highly. The
ultimate cost in this case is probably the dissolution of Progsoc.
>If it seems I've come down a bit hard on Sammy, It's only because he's
>contributed the most.. there's not enough from everyone else to really get
>into.
I thank you for not taking things personally. I hope my replies haven't
seemed personal. I recognise this is an area I need to work on,
particularly where the debate becomes heated, and thank you for your patience.
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Sammy Yousef | Email: syousef@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au |
| | URL: http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~sammy |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, |
| Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
| - Hamlet Act I, Scene V |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.