Discussion: Sharma and Rich

[Sharma]

OK Rich, 

I will reply in detail. I have cut our various emails apart to enable
anyone interested, maybe six people I would estimate, to read the whole
thing. 

-sharma


-----------------------------------------------------
Rich said:
> Sounds like they just can't take a good discussion.

> The problem I have with politeness is that it usually is an excuse for
> (1) an intentional two-faced evading of the issues or (2) an
> unintentional, but spineless, cowaring behind claims for calmness that
> is a disguise for hiding from the issues. 

> My tongue is partially (only partially, mind you) in my cheek.  But I
> have seen too much used-car-salesman diplomacy that has nurtured delay
> of essential changes for a long time.  (e.g. delaying electronic
> voting, supporting the un-elected and restricted Executive Committee
> as a decision-making body, allowing the board to cut their meeting at
> least in half, etc.) 

Sharma replied:
>Regardless of Rich's enjoyment of "shooting from the lip", I fail to see
>how it improves the functioning of SCNA. Verbal bullying in the name of
>challenging "spineless cowering as a way of evading the discussion of
>issues" is annoying to me, to say the least. I have no interest in working
>with anyone who feels that intentional rudeness and verbal attacks are the
>equivalent of a "good discussion". 


Rich replies: 
>       Sharma, you really should specify my crimes.  The message you
>responded to did not have any of the things you are complaining about. 
>Next time, do include the instances that demonstrate what you are talking
>about. 

Sharma replies:
     Perhaps you feel that "intentional two-faced evading" and "spineless
cowaring" are simple reports of the "facts" as you see them. To me, they
are verbal bullying. I prefer to not have to "take a good discussion" that
feels more insulting to me that I wish to see in my email. It appears to
me that your pleasure in setting the terms of discussion on attack mode is
bullying. 

Possibly because you are so physically big, maybe most people during your
life have been hesitant to protest over your preferred mode of
"discussion".  Just maybe most of those who can't, or are unwilling to,
"take a good discussion" leave rather than continue to have this "good
discussion"  crammed down their throats. 

Rich said:   

>However, it is good to see some fire from you.  And you even make
>some good points.  We need to hear from you on the public lists more
>often.

Sharma replies:
   I find this personally insulting. You have no idea who I am or what
"fire"  I am capable of.

  For the second point, I simply do not have time to read and respond to
many of the posts on the scn lists. Often, when I do read them, I find
they are either discussions within committees that need to be decided
within that committee before the board gets involved, if at all, or they
are heated exchanges over points I don't care about, nor plan to do
anything about unless it is brought to the board via the committees. For
example, the PINE discussion - I read a few of those posts and lost
interest. From the headers, they went on for many, many posts. 

   I do get considerable email from people who have decided not to
participate on various scn lists anymore, or with SCNA, because they do
not appreciate the level of personal insult and attack that passes for
discussion and conversation in these lists. Is that completely
insignificant to you?

Rich said:
> A Need for Serious Discussion   
>       Righto!  However, I haven't heard much from you on issues.  I
> assume you do serious discussion in board meetings, but since most of us
> are not board members, we don't witness much of it.  Wednesday night,
at
> the monthly meeting, which ended early, I invited you to sit down at
> coffee, but you declined.  After the annual meeting, a whole herd of us
> went for coffee.  You declined.  You talk with your inner circle, but
> when do you talk with members to get member input?
> 
>        At least join in on the list discussions more. 

Sharma replies:
   After you came over and made those comments about how good it was to
see some fire from me, like I was on some little league team and you were
appointed by the coach to work the team members up, I was way too annoyed
to go chat with you. I have consistently been polite to you, often biting
my tongue to do so. In return, you throw insults at the board without
making any distinction whatsoever. I do not want to talk to you over
coffee until I feel certain that you will not demand the right to set the
tone of the whole conversation with your idea of a spirited discussion. I
am unlikely to be trading insults one minute and then forget the next as
if it was all just in the spirit of good fun. I don't find it fun. I take
it seriously. 

As far as joining the group after the elections, as a member of the
election committee, I participated in counting the votes so we could get
the results of the election out immediately. 

The board meetings are open and anyone who wishes to can attend them and
listen to the discussions we have. You know this because you have
attended. I have personally posted my phone number on this, and other
lists, and invited anyone who wishes to discuss any issue with me to call.
I have had very few calls. Lots of people email me.


Rich:
>       As for the seriousness of my "style."  Hmmmmmm.  If you think I am
>not serious about the message, you are burying you've been in a closet. 
>That is the important element to me -- the message.  As to style, I've seen
>board members brush off gentle communications too readily, and use
>phoney reasons (lack of respect, for example) to brush off others.  I
>suspect that part of the wish for sweetened and gentle tones is because it
>makes it easier for board members to evade.  

Sharma said:
>Rich you may believe that your style of communicating is fun, and helps
>SCNA, but it has also hurt many people's feelings and has driven some
>volunteers away. It may not seem to you important, but not everyone is
>willing to continue to participate if the price is being attacked by you, and
>by others, who prefer that as a mode of discussion.

and:

I do think you are serious about your message. However, I find your love
of attack makes it less likely that I would want to participate with you
on any particular project within SCNA. You certainly have the right to
communicate in any way you wish as a person, but I am unwilling to have
SCNA be an "attack" culture which drives away anyone who can't, or won't
take it. 

As far as gentle communications being brushed off by board members who
wish to evade, well, "evade" is another loaded word. I agree that there
are several things we need to do that we have not done. It may surprise
you, but some of things we have not done have a reasonable explanation for
why they have not happened. When I read your "attack" communications, I
often just skip them as I know if I respond, I will get sucked into a
series of communications like this one which I consider mostly a waste of
time. I would be extremely surprised if more than six people read the
whole thing and respond to it. If that many... 

It appears to me that you brush off criticism of your style of
communication as weakness, evasiveness, or whatever. When I read that from
you, my inclination is to brush off your communications and do my best to
ignore anything you might have to say to avoid having to read through the
insults to get to the message. 

I realize that this only inspires you to escalate, but I have thus far had
zero luck in influencing you to de-escalate. Perhaps you will reply that
the only thing that would inspire de-escalation from you is action on the
part of the board (that faceless entity which you appear to believe sits
back as a solid group agreeing on every point to stymie the wishes of the
members). To that all I can reply is that the board is made up of
individuals and we are doing our best to be more effectively organized and
to make more of our functioning public. SCNA is set up for most of the
work, and most of the decisions, to be made within the committees. How's
the work going in whatever committee you are on? How many people are in
that committee?  Are you recruiting new members? Are you having regular
meetings?

I do hear of your wish for more information from the board. And it is
being discussed very seriously. However, as secretary, one of the reasons
more minutes have not been forthcoming is that for the last several weeks
you, and the elections, have taken up a great deal of the time I have for
volunteering for SCNA. Just as I am not working on the most recent minutes
at this minute because I am replying to your message about why you so
enjoy your type of email message and I do not. 


Rich said:
>       It looks like you figured something had gone too far, and you sent a
>well-aimed blast in response.  I go along with that approach.  I've done it
>myself.  And, when the calm communications don't get the job done, you
>are right to blast away.  I am certainly not in any position to complain
>about your unleashing a little righteous anger.  I might not agree with all
>your points, but I applaud your stepping up an laying it on the line.

Sharma replies:
    I really do not want to communicate in "blasts", nor to have that be
the community culture. I do not approve of myself, or anyone else,
unleashing a little "righteous anger". You simply have no idea of what you
are doing by finding it humorous that you are attempting to provoke me.
Where exactly do you think these little games should end? With verbal
insults, physical intimidations, the police being called, or ??? Or has
your size and bravado allowed you to set the limit with others always
backing down until this time? 


Sharma said:
>SCNA was set up to be both stable and open to change. It still is. Keeping
>the system running is the first need. Changing the system, the software
>programs which keep it running, is very time intensive and requires the
>work of volunteers on the operations committee. The board can request
>that operations work harder in areas where the users really, really want
>change, such as the implementation of PINE for example, but we can't
>order them to do so because they are also volunteers. 

>Rich may have forgotten that some of our attempts in electronic
>democracy nearly brought the system down with email loops. Any change
>needs a person or committee which will focus on that change. In spite of
>Rich's contempt for the efforts of many, many people, some changes
>which are needed have so far proven unsolvable, for example the database
>project.


Rich replied:
>       For example, back at the beginning of the year, the issue was raised: 
>put out an advance agenda before the board meetings so members can see
>what the board will be working.  There was no haranguing followup by
>me.  So, the idea just sat, and sat, and sat, and sat, and disappeared.  You
>did nothing with it.  No board member did anything with it. 

>       Now, we're not talking complexities here.  Brian High puts out an
>advance agenda with his committee.  He sends out a notice of the agenda
>in advance.  Why can't the board?  I personally think the reason is that the
>board values silence from the members far more than it values democratic
>input or open communication.  I could be wrong, but the record suggests
>that I'm not.  



Sharma replies:
  I agree that the board is not doing a good job with this, and we are
discussing it. I cannot speak for the board, but I would not be surprised
if we did make more effort to publish our agenda earlier. Gianni is now
our board Pres., and he is much more organized than many of the rest of us
and is really working to get us all to shape up. I support him in getting
me to shape up in particular. 

  In my opinion, you are imagining motives on the part of the board that
do not exist. We do want communication from the members, but prefer it
through the committees via the submission of a proposal of how to change
or add or whatever it is the committee wants. "The Board" is made up of
individuals who cannot act on their own in the name of the board. 

  I really should create a SCNA "black hole" where member proposals that
no one wants to work on could be parked until a member, or a committee or
a subcommittee want to go to work on it. Nothing happens til someone takes
responsibility for it and makes it happen. 

  There is talk of creating webspace for each committee, and each member,
to post exactly what they are doing within SCNA, i.e. the projects they
are working on, what they have accomplished, what are the sticking points,
what help they need from others, and so on. That would probably be very
helpful to enable members to see just what is happening, and identify who
is doing what, and find places to add their input to move things along. To
have this happen, a person has to volunteer to do it, and then do it. 

Sharma said:
>I personally am unwilling to have the "community culture" be one of "if
>you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen", because it will mean that
>only those who enjoy trading attacks will stick around. Is that what you
>want?

Rich replied:
> Civility is nice, but not as an excuse to bury dysfunctional processes
> in an organization.

and:

>Bullying ... mud ...
>      Well I never ....!  Land o' Goshen!  Bullying, eh?  I don't think that 
>is a well defined term of art.  That's a new twist from a board member,
>however, Joel and Gianni accused me of not being respectful.  Actually,
>bullying is to use force/power unfairly.  I don't see where I have enough
>force/power to live up to that definition. Especially if you're referring to
>my "abuse" of board members.  Accusing an SCN member of "bullying"
>board members is sort of like accusing a woman of being "pushy" because
>she is insistent;  that word choice might say more about the accuser than
>about the accused.  The inappropriateness of the term is even more
>noticible when one reads the message that triggered your letter. 

>       The same response could be applied to your "mud" word. 

>       However, semantics aside, your basic point is:  You don't like
>argumentative language on the list communications.  I think you are right. 
>Sweet and gentle is usually preferred by 9 out 10 SCN users.  But so is
>not-going-to-the-dentist.  So is not-washing-the-dishes.  The question is:
>does the context call for it? 

>       The answer is:  It does.   

>       Just as you concluded the context called for your well aimed blast at
>me,  Context is key. 
   
Sharma replies:
   Well, if your figure of 9-out-of-10 SCN users prefer sweet and gentle,
should not that carry a little more weight with you if you are interested
in an organization that gives the users what they want? Or are you
appointing yourself the group dentist who is going to force all of us to
submit to a little drilling whether "we" want it or not. 

  For you to compare me calling you a bully to an insistent woman being
called pushy only shows how little you understand how your "style" lands
when you lash out. For you to use that sort of comparison is ludicrous.
You could not possibly have any idea of how any woman who is trying to
make a point might feel or you would not try to hide behind her skirts.
The inappropriateness of your choice of this as a comparison certainly
does show a lot about how you see yourself in relation to the board, but
it has no relation to reality.

  I am surprised that you, who so casually throw out insults, would be
offended or startled by me calling you a bully. In my opinion, you are. It
would be interesting to be able to ask all the users and members who have
resigned from the various scn lists why they resigned. Undoubtedly some
did leave because the organization was not giving them enough of what they
wanted. I have heard from several who left because they could not tolerate
the constant harangues from and between self-appointed "dentists". 


Rich said:
Assumes board has unlimited time ...
>       You've opened a BIG can of worms here, Sharma.  I have to get to
>some other things right now.  I'll get into the question of the board
>members' time availability in part 2 of this reply to you, later.  (I, for one,
>can hardly wait to hear what I have to say.) 


Sharma replies:
  Was that a little slip Rich, you are fascinated by what you will have to
say about this? I wish I could find a little more enthusiasm for it. I
have been on computer networks for 12 years, and have been in dozens of
these flamewars, and I don't really know how much of this I am interested
in doing. It takes away from the time I have to work on SCNA stuff that I
simply must be doing. This particular letter has taken over three hours of
my time. 

  For me the bottom line is: I request that you modify your communication
style and cease using personal insults in email lists. You are free to
ignore my request, but I also am free to ignore any posts which contain
insults and provocations. I am perfectly willing to work with you, I am
not willing to be bullied by you.

> Peacefully yours,
> 
> Rich

  If only you had a commitment to any sort of peace other than one you are
in charge of Rich, I could read that without gagging. The vast majority of
SCNA members, and people in general, have no stomach for fighting. 
Unfortunately this distaste for combat leaves those who seek it with
center stage most of the time. I have no desire to fight, but I also won't
walk away from one. I will be nice if you will, the choice is yours. 

Sincerely,

-sharma


Thanks for the comment Barb, and we really are working on getting our
agenda together earlier so we can get it out.

-s

The following is from Barb:

Rich:
Most of this discussion is of secondary consequence to a point I believe
Sharma made: doing the job.  Where is the substantive, job/work related
issue here?  Get lost from that, and you are using us for group therapy. I
for one just don't care about that.  I want to see forward movement on
issues.

You brought up a major one: board agendas.  This is of rather vast
importance.  The membership does have the right to know what business is
going to be conducted at board meetings and to know the results of that
business in a timely manner.  Otherwise, I personally feel that board
members are abdicating their responsibilities and/or expropriating power
from the membership.  We can, of course, vote them out.  But wouldn't it
be easier if we just asked them to get a little more organized and
responsive, like: publish the dang agenda, you guys, along with the meeting
place and time; at least a week prior to the meeting.  If there is very little
on there, well, you can gradually learn how to remember to post agenda
items, like, learning the job, as you go along. 

I remember I also asked, "how does one get on the agenda for a Board
meeting?" and what I got was not a routine (send us an e mail with your
proposal, we will post you on the agenda and return it to you) what I got
was invitations to the meeting.  No one ever asked me what the item was
nor told me whether I would be on the agenda.  The board isn't a party;
please make up some routines to be responsive to membership.

Barb

P.S. Rich, I think I believe more in the steam engine approach (regular,
steady pressure which is accessed until full throttle is reached) than the
internal combustion approach (lots of little explosions push the pistons).


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *