Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:07:02 -0400
From: Gayle Surrette <davinci at chesapeake.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes; other news
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Keith,

Maybe you thought we were ignoring you.  But I guess explaining
to you at several meeting that you can not take a PHP site and
simply click on it and put it on your site does NOT create
a mirror but only a time slice of the site at the moment you
did it -- didn't count as explaining anything.  Telling you
that we had to completely recode the site to get pages to
work on your mirror also didn't equate to talking and explaining
things to you.  Keith, when people tell you something you don't
want to hear, it's still information given and since you stood
there and listened it's considered information received.

The fact that we explained over and over again that if the
current Capclave site went down for any reason your backup
would be useless as the site because of the static nature of
the PHP pages also passed by in conversation evidently.

Sorry you have a problem with the concept of information
transfer but that's not our problem.  We've tried our best
to keep you informed and it obviously has been for naught.

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>I really think that the way you phrased it in the minutes is that we
>>ignored your requests and as you know that isn't so.
>
> Well, you did.  For months.  I thought I was very restrained during
> the meeting.  Perhaps too restrained, as I neglected to mention that
> you now have the *only* copy of the Capclave website, and if anything
> happens to you, it's gone.  And that the site is intended for inreach
> as well as outreach, which is where a mirror site is really important
> during brief main-site downtimes; WSFAns know about both sites, and
> could have looked at keithlynch.net/wsfa/capc05/ if they found
> capclave.org temporarily unavailable.

Actually several WSFAn's have access to the site and therefore
the code. The code as we explained in email is backed up on two
other off-site media and in two different places.  It is quite
safe in case a meteor should happen to hit us.

>
> I had been looking forward to discussing these issues and
> considerations with you, either in person or via email, i.e.
> discussing the pros and cons of a mirror site, and various ways you
> could have provided me with updates with negligible effort, since all
> I needed was a list of files, not the files themselves.  Maybe we
> would have reached the same conclusion you reached.  Or maybe some
> other conclusion.  Maybe someone could have spoken up and come up with
> an easier way to get that information to me.  I know it would have
> been utterly trivial on Unix, and I assume it couldn't be much harder
> on Windows or any other system, just to do the equivalent of piping
> the output of "ls" to my mailbox nightly, which would have required
> *zero* effort once set up.  Instead, I was presented with months
> of dead silence, followed by a decision made entirely by others.
> Never before had I felt so much like Capclave is "them," not "us."

As I said above we've talked to you at two of the last three
1st Fiday meetings.  Granted Paul said he'd speak to you at
the last 1st Friday and didn't get to do it, but then we
hadn't planned on me having a major asthma attack either
and regretfully we opted to medicate me, get me away from
the cats, and home to my inhalation therapy instead.  Most
every one at the meeting was aware that we were leaving
early and the reason for it.  Which was another thing Paul
explained to you in his e-mail.

If you truly wanted to discuss issues you could have emailed
which, for the majority, you didn't.  And when you did ask for
information, we usually said we had to check with the other
committee people or heads.  Sorry that you feel instantaneous
response is the only adequate response to your requests.
Unfortunately, most things take time and discussion and it is
not up to us to make the final discisions.

And why should you think you should be in on the negotiations?
You resigned from the website and requested that you cease
receiving any of the capclave e-mail traffic.  You removed
yourself from the process.  You can't do that and then
complain that you're not involved.  The vast majority of the
club is out of the loop, but it's not "them" vs "us" thing,
it's a "people involved" vs "people not involved" thing.

>
> If I forgot to say anything, it was at the meeting, not in the
> minutes.  The minutes are intended merely to reflect what was said at
> the meeting, not what should have been said, and are only defective
> if they fail to do so accurately and completely.  If you thought I
> neglected to say something at the meeting, you could have spoken
> up then; you and Paul were there.  You can still do so at the next
> meeting, of course.  And I will accurately report whatever you have
> to say there, no matter how unflattering to me.

Personally, I figured I'd let you have your snit at the
meeting butI didn't want it in writing as if it were the
truth.  I will not argue at a meeting.  But I did post the
change that should be made to the minutes to the list
because I'm sick and tired of letting you belittle the Capclave
site and us because you no longer can get things done on your
schedule.  We didn't want to run the Capclave site at all.
As we have told you a dozen times, we only offered to design
it. Then YOU resigned and we became the webmasters of the site
because someone had to do it.  It's not what we wanted but it's
been a real learning experience for us and, other than your
continued grumping about us being in charge of it, we've enjoyed
doing it.

>
> Since I'm completely out of the Capclave website business, I hope
> this will end any grounds for disagreement between us.

If you were out of it we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Once you resigned you should have let go.  You can't resign and
still maintain control -- it doesn't work both ways.

>
> Well, there is one possible ground left, so I hereby promise not to
> nag you about the Capclave '07 website before next year, and not to
> maintain a Capclave '07 mirror site, ever.  That should give plenty
> of time for everything to cool off.

Thank you that would be perfect acceptable to me.

>
> Thank you again for all the work you've done on the Capclave '05 and
> '06 websites, and I apologize for any conflicts.  We both know they
> come entirely from a mutual desire to do what's best for WSFA and
> for Capclave.
>

I know that Keith.  That's why I haven't said anything before,
but I too have my limits to control and I've about reached them.
I want the capclave convention and its sites to be something we
can be proud of and you're offered a lot of helpful advice and
found a large number of problems which we greatly appreciate.

We might have said something at 3rd Friday but Paul got me out
before the insipient asthma attack became full blown.

Gayle & Paul
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."    Theodore Roosevelt
*
Gayle Surrette             Brandywine, MD
davinci at chesapeake.net     home email
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++