Why Attack? [was Revisit number forty two hundred]

[Melissa Guest]

Barb - 

We think you may have missed the main point of what Nan has said. The
attacks are at people (whether you know who the mail goes to or not) 
and over big maillists.  Why are ATTACKS necessary at all?  Does it
get the people who are receiving them more motivated to do the work
they're not doing enough of?  Perhaps, but it seems more likely
they'll get involved in defending what they've been doing (e.g. our
last few notes re: the IP Program, broadcasted to many more people
than we think want to watch this whole set of interactions, but sent
to all in an attempt to "clear our name").  Or the attackee or will
just get less interested in doing anything ("why bother? it's
thankless work anyway").  

If you can't help but attack ("constructively criticize") what is
being done, why not send it first just to the person/people who are
most involved - and give them a chance to respond?  Or talk to them!? 
Email is so much better for communication of simple information than
it is for discussion of opinions (which have a lot of nonverbal cues
normally accompanying them in coversation). What's the point of
sending accusations (like gossip) to such large distribution lists? 
(this message, for example, is going to more than 100 people - my
apologies to those of you already tired of all these messages). 

If the people doing the attacking spent their time instead on some of
the work that needs doing, we would be able to move forward so much
faster!  If you or anyone else reading this thinks something is
broken, get your hands dirty by joining the team responsible and find
out exactly in which ways things are and are not working.  Try
offering to help work with the others involved to actually improve
things rather than dictating from the sidelines how they should be
improved (frequently without even close to full knowledge of what is
really going on - something you won't be "entitled" to unless you are
part of the team). 

If you can get organized enough to get a petition together, why not
use the time instead organizing the same group to actually help get
the work done?  If you had all the board members removed, who would
you put in their place that will spend any more time doing the work? 
[Btw - we're looking for applicants to the board, and have a lot more
information about the skills/characteristics we're in need of to make
the board more effective - anyone reading this can send me email or
call if you'd like more details - a more public notice is almost ready
to be sent to the SCNA membership.  Prospective board applicants will
be expected to start by volunteering, probably within a board-level
committee.]

Barb, you and a few others especially could be so much more a positive
driving force in this organization IF you wanted to be.  It just takes
consciously working with others supportively instead of shouting at
the wind about what you think is wrong.  We're so glad to see some of
the steps you personally have taken in this direction (like
volunteering to help with some of the problems you are most concerned
about), and hope others will follow your example.  Anyone interested
is welcome to contact us or the volunteer program directly. 

 - Steve & Mel

   -=-  -=-=-  -=-  -=-=-  -=-  -=-=-  -=-  -=-=-  -=-  -=-=-  -=-
Melissa & Steve Guest                                  (425) 653 7353
Seattle Community Network                          http://www.scn.org
   "Supporting People and Communities with Free Internet Services"


On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Barb Weismann wrote:
> Nan:
> It's not clear to me what your gripe is.  I originated this "thread."  I
> sent it to a bunch of lists because it was a petition.  I think that
> responders failed to delete all those lists from their replies.  However,
> I guess I considered the discussion important enough to get to all working
> volunteers. I think this should answer the part of the question about why
> so many lists.
> 
> You next ask, I think, why get personal.  Well, Kenneth asked for
> examples.  He wanted actual case histories of what was wrong.  I replied
> to him with an example.  Terry replied with her example. 
> 
> Your question made me think of how we treat email addresses and titles,
> though.  Basically, I don't really know who receives mail at xx029, xx031,
> and other email addresses associated with positions.  When I write to
> them, it's not to a person, it's like a call in the dark, anyone
> home??  that's what it feels like.  I want someone on that desk in on what
> the discussion is, but I won't necessarily focus in on a decision that "I
> want Mel and Steve, or whomever, to read this."  When I do, I use their
> personal account addresses. 
> 
>  Unfortunately, I also don't much associate the titles with the people,
> either...I may write volunteer coordinaotr, IP coordinator, this is one
> place where I am not really talking about Joel, Mel or Steve: I am talking
> about the position, and how they might seem to fill it.  This is a
> dissociation that is perhaps not nice to make, but I make it, and I think
> others make it.  Why is because the needs of the organization have always
> so far exceeded the capacity of the one person filling a post like
> volunteer coordinator, that we have gotten used to talking about the post,
> so as not to insult Nancy K. or Joel, who we know are doing what they can. 
> I know this is a very odd twitch, but often we have done that trying to
> keep some respect for the person while wishing the job could be expanded
> and better done. 
> 
> I think others will concur that this is how long time scners feel.  And, I
> think that dissociation from the reality of some other human out there is
> clearly part of what email communication is about.  There are many names
> here I have never met in person, and, goodness, they don't know what I
> look like either!  I in no way support the dissociation, but it happens.
> 
> Barb
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Nan Hawthorne wrote:
> 
> > I have to ask this:
> > 
> > Is it really productive to criticize the work of individual volunteers on all
> > these lists?  Would any of you who have singled out individual volunteers for
> > public criticism feel very good about the same being done about you?
> > 
> > I'm embarrassed to read some of this.   And discouraged to see it.  There are
> > assertive and cooperative ways to solve problems.
> > 
> > What if instead of going after folks in a public arena we discuss _appropriate_
> > ways to resolve problems in an all-volunteer organization?  We might start by
> > listing what we'd each hope others did when concerned that we are not doing
> > _our_ part right.
> > 
> > I suggest we all follow Rod's example and provide clear, succinct and civil and
> > un-personalized responses and questions.
> > 
> > Nan Hawthorne
> > Co-coordinator, Human Resources

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *