Why Attack? [was Revisit number forty two hundred]

[Barb Weismann]

Dear Mel:
I want first to say: we have all been hurt here.  I mean, we feel it.  It
has been part of my work here that I regret.  I hope we can find ways to
work, so that people involved won't have to have feeling hurt as part of
their commitment to scn.

With that, I want to apologize deeply for any way in whiich I have
inadvertently hurt another.  I think my reply to Nan made it clear that I
don't like the dissociation that goes on with this kind of communication.
If I have contributed to that, I am sorry.

In writing the petition, I was seeking a manner in which I could ask
others in the organization to approach what I saw as a problem.  I did not
think that if I wrote a petition to change policies and Bylaws, that when
I sued terms like "volunteer coordinaotr," that would be taken as an
attack.  It wasn't meant as an attack.  The ByLaws don't have any Board
reporting requirements more than once a year at the annual meeting.  I
don't think that's enough.  Thus, the petition.

Again, thank you for your report.  I always appreciate the time taken to
write these.  However, I think we have a difference of opinion over their
worth: I consider that the report is just as important as the work done.
Maybe that is an unusual position, but it comes from working in so many
places where working hard is always the mode, communicating to
decision-makers always difficult, and having important opportunties pass
unnoticed part of the frustration.  Reporting gives good pictures of roles
fulfilled, accomplishments reached, and those special times of
opportunities seized upon and made into a success, fully understood.  to
me, it should be the other side of the coin of work: recogntion.

I have been trying to follow Nan's request that instead of complaining,
"why can't they," that I search myself and make offers as to how to help
to solve what is my desire to have accomplished.  I'd like to continue
with that effort, but I think I need some advice.

Given that I am interested in having monthly reporting of Board,
committee, and work group work published on scn so both we and the outside
world can get a better view of how we work and what we do:
--What can I offer to do besides, as I have, offered to take minutes at
Board meetings?
--How can I serve other committees and positions, which do not meet
regularly, to accomplish this?  Ideas: interveiw the positions once a
month and take notes? Round up other volunteers within those work groups
who are interested, too, in good reporting, and organize the effort?
Create a new committee for this?(I don't consider this a good option,
but...) Research voice to script transcribers to make the job easier for
others?  Get a tape transcription playback machine for scn and have
committtees and meetings taped and sent to me for transcription?

These are ideas, I am throwing them out there, I don't expect anything
more than that they get mulled over and considered, whether any one or
several would work.

I have one more offer:  I wrote something in that last reply to Nan that
was passed over.  I think I said: "the needs of the organization have
always far exceeded the capacity of the postions to meet."  I think this
is still true, and I think we need more workers on the HR committee to
bring the organizational capacity to bring in and use volunteers up
further.  I think a good goal would be to aim that every volunteer does
their one or two or three hours a week or month or whatever, says to
themself, "Done!" feels good about it, and goes out to Coleman Pool.
We're not there yet.  Endlessly too much work makes me feel junky,
overwhelmed, wanna quit.  Accomplishing finite tasks, even returning to
them a second time, as with the em-trng outline (collective) editing, that
feels good.  If you wish, I will help you and scn develop capacity.

Barb



On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Melissa Guest wrote:

> 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/     * * * * * * *
> 

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