SCN: SCNA general meeting 6/9.

[Randy Groves]

We've got a lot to learn.  There was a roster sheet circulated, but some
people added e-mail addresses and some didn't.  I don't have that in hand
(I believe that Alan has it).  We asked folks to send me an e-mail to be
put on a list to discuss these topics, but I've only gotten about 4
responses.  I think that I might invite them to this list, rather than
creating another.  I see scn at scn.org more for the philosophical discussions
- not necessarily where we'll get any work done.  But we've got to start
somewhere.

I do remember some good discussion around the topic of accessibility, and
several applications were made known to me that would be perfect for
inclusion in added services.  The fact that most of them are not connected
with the behemoths of Facebook, Twitter, and Google was also of interest.

There will be another meeting - I believe that the tentative timing is in a
month's time.  There's plenty to do.

-randy

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ken Gillgren <kgillgren at igc.org> wrote:

>  Hey, Randy, did any on capture (or does anyone recall) any of the future
> visions conversation. I would be very interested in hearing what people
> were sharing on that issue.
>
> And did anyone collect email addresses of the folks who attended. I'm glad
> this list is helping facilitate some conversation, but I'm not so confident
> that everyone who attended is on this list.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Ken Gillgren
>
>
> On 6/12/2012 2:18 PM, Randy Groves wrote:
>
> JJ - I am a bit non-plussed that you sat in the back of the room, didn't
> want to identify yourself, did not make any suggestions (good or bad), then
> left.  (And I know I wasn't able to chat on the phone recently - it just
> wasn't a good time ...)
>
> Why does everyone feel the need to hash over the past?  Why can't we just
> 'get over it', and attempt to identify and assemble the good parts of what
> is left into something that functions?
>
> Everyone casts stones at the 'non-functional board', but no-one ever takes
> a look at where THEY'VE been over the last 10 years.  Remember the old
> adage that when you point one finger at someone, there are 4 pointing back
> at you.
>
> Yes - there have been problems.  Let's fix them looking toward the future,
> rather than looking toward the past.
>
> And I dispute the contention that no suggestions vis a vis SCN/SCNA were
> requested.  You may have left by then, but I remember (and yes this is a
> defect - we didn't have an official secretary) quite a bit of discussion
> about visions of the future in the latter part of the meeting.
>
> -randy
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM, J. Johnson <jj at scn.org> wrote:
>
>> Alan Miller has said that some of the comments I reported from the meeting
>> were taken out of context.  Which I find curious.  I am sure that everyone
>> on this list understands the broader context of a decade and more of a
>> dysfunctional organization, and the history thereof, and the persons
>> involved.  That there is not more "context" from the meeting itself --
>> well, did anyone else think to take notes?  If anyone feels I have
>> misreported anything please tell us so that the record (such as it is) can
>> be corrected.  Because lacking a prepared agenda and recorded notes, this
>> meeting is now just a bunch of divergent, fading memories.
>>
>> Several of us were some what surprised to hear the Board had enough
>> gumption to call a meeting, let alone show enough intitiative to call for
>> some suggestions.  But it seems like they didn't.  It appears that the
>> prime mover here is Randy ("technical consultant to the Board"), who
>> figured out how some nifty applications (i.e., WikiMedia and a blog
>> package) could be plugged into SCN.  So the Board wasn't asking for
>> suggestions regarding SCN/SCNA at all.  They were reacting to being
>> completely df'ed by a particular possibility. And they have absolutely no
>> more conception of how to manage this then they have ever had.
>>
>> And that is the crux of the problem.  The SCNA Board is quite inable to
>> manage the organization in their charge.  They can't even manage
>> themselves, to the extent of holding the legally required meetings.  (But
>> they do have "errors and omissions" insurance, lest anyone sues them.)
>> Being unable to manage some simple services, they have this idea that
>> adding complex services will automatically fix everything.  Which raises
>> the edifice higher, but fixes nothing.
>>
>> I would be more impressed if they would honestly try to fix a few
>> problems, rather than stack them higher.
>>
>> === JJohnson =====================================================
>>
>>
>> * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
>> To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
>> In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn/attachments/20120612/339add86/attachment.html>