Clarification of Background Checks Issue

[Rich Littleton]

Janos have been corresponding a lot privately and congenially, so I think
he wanted a public clarification.  
______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote:

> Rich, Explain to me why you view protecting someones future and giving
> more space is depressing? 

Response:

1.  Background checks are not protecting any volunteer's future.  

2.  You misunderstood the relative sentence.  I was saying that, when the
board had the chance to support volunteers as volunteers by giveing them
more space, the board declined.  Instead, the board said it would give all
users more space, which is a good thing, but the board had no interest in
showing any appreciation for the volunteers.

3.  My point about depression was that Gianni's approach to dealing with
volunteers resembles increasing the controls on volunteers RATHER THAN
actually doing anything significant FOR volunteers.  Greater control, less
appreciation.  Leads to deep, deep depression.

Anything else you'd like to know?

LLater,

Rich

> 
> Janos
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *