At least Evan stepped up and contributed. I agree with his point, "So because we can't afford to do all the things we should do none of them? I don't agree with this logic. "
So far all I have heard is people arguing why and ED wouldn't work. Instead of being a naysayer (we have enough of them already), what is your suggestion? Do nothing and stay irrelevant? Perhaps LOSPA needs two levels of membership. Sort of like Starship Troopers. Paid member can rant on the mailing lists. Members who have stepped up and served/volunteered/contributed to some minimum degree get additional privileges. This is not an ad hominem attack, merely one on talkers and not doers. This is one man's opinion: What is the best use of our membership dues at this moment? Hiring an ED would be my first step towards numerous other goals. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Evan Pettrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Evan Pettrey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Evan Pettrey <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think perhaps we're being a bit pedantic on the title vs. the role. >>>>> If an ED isn't capable of being both a manager and doer then go out and >>>>> hire somebody a different title. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think you're missing the point. There are a lot of things that could >>>> be done: enough, and large enough, things that hiring one person to do them >>>> is insufficient. If you want paid doers, you're looking at hiring a small >>>> army --- and paying the associated costs, both monetary and other. >>>> >>> >>> So because we can't afford to do all the things we should do none of >>> them? I don't agree with this logic. >>> >> >> I'm not required to accept an assumption you dragged in on your own. Try >> pricing the manpower needed for *one* of those projects. Although I suppose >> that's dangerous because you'll pick some cheap one and then cite it with >> yet another dragged-in assumption that it's representative of all of them. >> > > My experience from the 2 years I recently spent on the board was that many > of the projects we had stall could have been successfully completed with a > single person on the payroll. I don't see a value in getting into a battle > over the specifics as I'm sure that will quickly devolve into a baseless > argument saying whether things could or could not be done effectively by > somebody on a paid staff. > > What I will definitely say is that doing something is going to produce > better results than doing nothing in this regard. We can continue down the > path of saying, "we need more volunteers, etc" that everybody has been > saying for the past decade but unless you're volunteering to commit 40 > hours of your own each week (or you will go out and personally recruit 10 > people who will commit 4 hours per week) then I don't see how your method > is going to be more effective. > > > In any case, it is probably best we just agree to disagree on this one (I > say after I've made my point, go ahead and reply as it's only fair you get > to make the final point). > >> >> -- >> brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine >> associates >> [email protected] >> [email protected] >> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad >> http://sinenomine.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
