Re: [atlarge-discuss] Stop Further "Work..."

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Abel and all fellow members,

  You made some very good points below Abel. Well done.

  You also are seemingly considering going forward under
false pretenses as well as considering the Jefsey-election
false and possibly fraudulent "panel members" as though
they have an absolute mandate of the members on any
and all matters they alone should choose. That's wrong
and incorrect for any start-up, bottoms up, membership
driven organization.

  Any legitimately elected panel or representative must
work do works that the membership determines, not
the other way around.  Failure to do so will only
make future endeavors of this fledgling organization
more difficult if not nearly impossible as well as
incense the present members.  That is not
a healthy thing, nor a wise one to do...

Abel Wisman wrote:

> 1. I speak for myself, not for the panel as a whole, that would be
> impossible on this short notice even if I wanted to.
>
> > > Even if we wanted to stop this, can you explain how ?
> >    ...nope - but that was not the main point, which I did not
> > think I needed to explain - but since you asked, read on
>
> Well in my opinion if you think we should do "something" describing what
> "You" think to be that something would be a good starting point,
> noticing what Jeffsey wrote is something we all did and share our
> concerns on.
>
> > > And even more, if we were in a position to tell you not to
> > do anything
> > > of the kind, would you really give a <fill in>?
> >    ...whether the person or persons to whom the Panel
> > expresses their wishes cares to listen is not the point - the
> > point is that the Panel go on record with what they wish!
>
> The panel can undoubtedly go one record with an enormous wish-list,
> probably even far more pertinent then just Jeffsey stopping whatever
> he's doing, however the panel is already on record saying that he should
> under no circumstances use the membership-list for anything at all.
> Motions to expel have been floating around, but he is no longer a member
> as he disasociated himself from membership. Cutting anybody of this open
> maillist is also not that smart, since it would kill the "open" idea and
> more posters should then fear a same destiny I would think.
>
> > We have a member tell us publicly, they are going to do "X"
> > work. If the Panel does not make a public statement to the
> > effect that the member should cease and desist, then that
> > member can, rightfully, presume the Panel has given their
> > tacit approval for the member's actions!!!
> >
> > Of course, if that is the Panel's intent...
>
> If a member (unimportant who) decides to flush out disrupter-bots and
> what's more without using means that are not available to any member,
> when that member proves his case, then I will be that last one to stop
> that member. If he does not prove his case or presents his case then
> there is nothing to be talked about, the mere threat is not enough to
> justify action of any kind, if we listened to threats and were impressed
> or believed them all real, I would most likley have been visited by
> every agency the USA ever conjurred up on JW's statements alone and not
> only me, many more on this list!
>
> The panel has not discussed this matter as yet, as you undoubtedly will
> understand seeing our busy schedule and time-zone constraints, but no
> doubt we will and then come with a statement.
>
> > > Our and my wishes in this matter are irrelevant
> >    ...huh? Right now, the Panel's wishes is the only thing
> > (so to speak) that raises this organization above the status
> > of an unruly mob.
>
> Which organization? We are trying to establish becoming one, which would
> give us "powers" to do something in cases like this, hence I have other
> priorities then reacting to every promise and threat made on the
> maillist.
>
>
> > > I prefer concentrating on positive developments
> >    ...double-huh?
> >
> > I would expect this Panel would certainly understand that you
> > have to deal with more than just the "good-stuff," and much
> > more quickly. Prior Panels appeared to never have learned this.
> >
> > That's one reason why they became prior...
>
> Had prior panels dealt with the "good stuff" there would have been
> by-laws, clear election rules and an incorporated organization that had
> the legal status to address these matters. However prior panels were to
> busy dealing with more then just that and see where it got them, we are
> still in the same stage as we were 2 years ago.
>
> The focussing on important points as polling-committee, by-laws,
> verification committee and such is hard enough as it is, made even
> harder by the noise about everything and anything, but should be the
> main prioroty of the panel according to my opinion.
>
> If you consider these things "the good stuff" then I submit you address
> those as well, I failed to see any reaction to my post a few days ago
> about these things (see
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0306/msg01519.html ).
>
> With kind regards
>
> Abel
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de