[occupyaustin-it] GA Representation tonight
koymkg at gmail.com
Mon Nov 21 17:17:33 CST 2011
Thanks for leading this tread, explaining to Occupiers the existence of IT
& WebTeam division of labor/two identities. Since 1968 & becoming a Retired
Military Research Scientist, I get uncomfortable when seeing ass biting and
Proceed firmly in tonight's GA. Allow no ass biting, bitching or bickering
from the WebTeam nor sabotage. As a 72 year old with 53 years of activism,
I call bad mouthing of IT work and the unworkability of WebTeam products
inappropriate. Major damage occurs to OA, OWS and Occupy Everywhere. We do
not need. Nor do we need Cesar bastardizing follow IT professionals. I say
the latter as I have had to render therapy behalf a person Cesar abused by
his mode of asking for IT work to be done.
If paranoia, hate, and anger prevails amidst negotiations, it ruins
relations. It abuses newcomers, causes grave harm, misgivings and unneeded
heart ache. It takes tough newcomers to deal with unprofessional like
dissension provoked by those like Anton the night I first attended [+/-
nine/10 weeks back] and many GAs I've attended.
I pray that cloak and dagger attitudes come under control as it causes my
body to twitch in response thereto.
Sincerely, Kenneth Koym, Licensed Psychotherapist/Certified Mediator, Cell
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Alan Viosca <alanviosca at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your voicing your concerns about the website. I am forwarding
> your message to the web team, who is responsible for all things related to
> the website. While many of us on the IT team would be more than happy to
> help you out, we have no authority to change any of the website. Hopefully
> the web team will be helpful in addressing your concerns. I myself have had
> many of the same problems with the forums.
> Best regards,
> Alan Viosca
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Roderick B. <dreads at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you Alan.
>> My primary concern with the site is the forum function. I haven't been
>> able to figure out the ordering of topics. Additionally, the ability to add
>> a topic appears to be a manual or moderated process. If topics were allowed
>> to be freely created and ordered by number of responses, it would be more
>> useful to me and I believe we would have a more vibrant dialogue. Spam
>> would fall to the bottom where it could be killed and hot topics would
>> float to the top. Many who want to interact online and promote OA have also
>> expressed this concern to me.
>> There are several topics in the forum which are stale (First Arrests...
>> What to Do Next?) or marginally relevant to the immediate needs in Austin
>> near the top (National/International Outreach and Working Groups). I can
>> understand the need for 'sticky' topics, but the queuing and seemingly
>> manual ordering of topics discourages users from reading or interacting in
>> the forum. There are also valid topic proposals sitting in a queue awaiting
>> approval. I can't tell if these topics were approved or not. There could be
>> many reasons for the way topics must be first proposed, but it should be
>> stated why this process is in place and clear guidelines should be
>> accessible. Proposals should be acted on in a timely manner and on each
>> topic that's not obviously spam, a valid reason for 'no approval' should be
>> explicitly provided. The lack of guidance and action gives the appearance
>> of censorship on our group-funded web site. If there are guidelines posted
>> somewhere in the forum, I can't find them due to the organization of the
>> forum itself.
>> There are valuable discussions which can be refined in an online forum
>> before being brought up at GA. If the web team fixes the forums to make
>> them (more) usable with fewer clicks, we'll get much more bang for
>> everyone's donated bucks. I have seen instances in the past where making
>> suggestions to change the forums were answered by an invitation to join the
>> web team and make the changes ones self. I hope the web team will
>> thoughtfully consider making meaningful improvements to the forums a
>> Thank you for listening,
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Alan Viosca <alanviosca at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> First of all, I would like to ask if anyone knows whether or not there
>>> is going to be a GA tonight. I'm assuming there will be working group
>>> meetings, so I'll go down to CH to represent the IT team and ask anyone to
>>> bring up any issues to me regardless.
>>> If there is a GA tonight, are there any specific concerns that anyone
>>> would like me to bring to the GA? Right now I am just planning on repeating
>>> the fact that the web team is a separate entity from the IT team, and that
>>> any concerns about the website should be brought to the web group rather
>>> than IT. Would there be any exceptions to this rule? Seems like there might
>>> be one or two areas where the web and IT team might overlap in this aspect
>>> (e.g. hardware).
>>> I'm also planning on telling the GA a little bit about the power station
>>> project and the fact that we will have a final parts list soon and will be
>>> asking for donations in the near future, possibly with a proposal to the
>>> finance committee that would need to be accepted by the GA. I'll also send
>>> out our normal invitation to people not well-represented in the IT group,
>>> and be available as a point of contact after the GA.
>>> Anything else you guys want me to bring up (specifically concerns)?
>>> occupyaustin-it mailing list
>>> occupyaustin-it at foojutsu.org
>> occupyaustin-it mailing list
>> occupyaustin-it at foojutsu.org
> occupyaustin-it mailing list
> occupyaustin-it at foojutsu.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the occupyaustin-it