Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
Simon Batistoni wrote: If they're irrelevant I'll save time and space by not bothering to answer. I don't feel that these questions, or the addenda provided by MBM are in the least bit irrelevant, and I would tend towards reading alex's title as unnecessarily self-depracating. As a potential leader of London.pm, I would have hoped that you would apply a similar lenient reading to such postings, and do your best to accommodate the questioner. Well pardon me for attempting to have a sense of humour. On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 11:13:01PM +, Lusercop wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:57:00PM +, alex wrote: [a] What, in your eyes, is the worst thing that london.pm has ever done? (i) why? Individuals have done some pretty silly things, and I'm no doubt just as guilty as anyone else. As a group though, I'd say that sponsoring the camel for the second time has to be up there. We couldn't afford it, and shouldn't have taken loans from members - who have had to wait far too long to be repayed - to do it. If we couldn't raise the money to do it properly, then we shouldn't have done it at all. It might have been OK if we'd gained anything from so doing, but I don't think we did, sponsoring a camel seems to me to have been nothing more than a bit of collective ego-boosting. There's nowt wrong with ego-boosting per se, but when it's done at someone elses expense it's bad, mmm'kay? [b] What, if anything, would you have done to stop them from carrying out this heinous act, if you were leader? It should be noted that at the time I think I was in favour, it is only subsequent events - namely our spectacular failure to raise the funds in a timely fashion - that changed my mind. There's nothing a leader can do to prevent any subset of london.pm from doing anything they want. However, I would hope that by asking people to not credit such schemes to london.pm my own special brand of sanity* might prevail. [c] What are your leaderly plans for penderel (the computer)? None. It works, so I have little inclination to fix it. (i) who will have root? Same as now. If the sysadmins think someone else should get it for whatever reason, I'm sure they'll do it. (ii) how will you go about making sure that people who aren't supposed to don't have root? I won't, as I don't have root and I don't think I need it. You volunteering? In the grand scheme of things, penderel isn't actually that important. It's nice to have, and I'm grateful to those who look after it, but I won't lose any sleep over failures. So it runs our web site and the mailing list. Big deal, it's not like we're making megabucks from online sales, so the odd bit of downtime doesn't matter. And when was the last time it was rooted? Recent failures have been hardware and the network, not ev1l skr1p7 k1dd13z. [d] What is the best thing that london.pm has done, and what will you do to try and make sure that it, or something similar happens again? YAPC::Europe arose from a conversation on this list, before being taken off and implemented by a smaller cabal, so does that count? But I don't think we need to do something similar again, let's do something new instead. London.pm is too large and too damned difficult to orgynise for london.pm to do such things. It has proven to be a good source of ideas for projects which are then implemented by individual members or by small groups - YAPC::E being just the most visible such. The best way of ensuring that we continue to talk about mad crazy schemes like that is to make sure we keep having lively, well-informed, and friendly discussions on-list and on irc. The role of a leader in that is to make sure things don't get too nasty when the inevitable disagreements show up. Thankfully, we're pretty much self- regulating so I don't think that'll require much effort. [e] How will you try and attract more new faces to london.pm, so that it doesn't just become the same old clique? It's a pity that there's so little active crossover between us and other geekly london groups. I'd like to try to fix that. One solution might be joint tech meets. * - insert mwuhahahahaha as appropriate -- David Cantrell | Benevolent Dictator | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david It doesn't matter to me if someone else's computer is faster because I know my system could smash theirs flat if it fell over on it. -- (with apologies to Brian Chase)
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, David Cantrell wrote: In the grand scheme of things, penderel isn't actually that important. As my only way of communicating with London.pm as a entity, I'd rather disagree with that. Maybe people who use irc lots, and the list very little, disagree. If penedrel goes down for a week, and that week coincides with the venue for a meet being announced, and the meet happening, its importance might be reconsidered. It's a pity that there's so little active crossover between us and other geekly london groups. I'd like to try to fix that. One solution might be joint tech meets. I suspect it's the 'programmers' core that doesn't have much overlap. Plenty of systems and network folk use perl, and co-mingle (though it's not helped by every group on the planet choosing to meet on thursdays). I've found that quite a few programmers can live their life just programming, whereas systems and network bods tend to have at least a vague idea about all 3 disciplines. Without a language-neutral group in london (that I'm aware of) I can see how there might not be a forum for them to socialise with related geeks. When I was new to the list, I quickly found people I know from work-related socialising, sysadmin-related groupings, and college/uni things, all of whom I see other places. I've yet to see the appeal of the OS advocacy, and have been put off the likes of GLLUG, the BSD groups, and similar by my limited experience with them. But if it was suggested that various groups who meet regularly clubbed together to fill a bigger venue, then I'd be in favour of that. I think it's the social aspect that helps glue people together - much as I value the tech meets, I think without the socials and the list, where you learn more about people that their perl skills, you don't get the sense of community. the hatter
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:57:00PM +, alex wrote: [a] What, in your eyes, is the worst thing that london.pm has ever done? (i) why? [b] What, if anything, would you have done to stop them from carrying out this heinous act, if you were leader? [c] What are your leaderly plans for penderel (the computer)? (i) who will have root? (ii) how will you go about making sure that people who aren't supposed to don't have root? [d] What is the best thing that london.pm has done, and what will you do to try and make sure that it, or something similar happens again? [e] How will you try and attract more new faces to london.pm, so that it doesn't just become the same old clique? My £0.02 -- Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
If they're irrelevant I'll save time and space by not bothering to answer. -- David Cantrell|Reprobate|http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Gehyrst þu, sælida, hwæt þis folc segeð? Hi willað eow to gafole garas syllan, ættrynne ord and ealde swurd, þa heregeatu þe eow æt hilde ne deah. -- Brithnoth
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 23:13, Lusercop wrote: My £0.02 I wasn't actually interested in what non-candidates had to say - best not clutter up the election qas any more than necessary imho. alex
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 23:21, David Cantrell wrote: If they're irrelevant I'll save time and space by not bothering to answer. I sneaked in one relevant one: [c] What are your leaderly plans for penderel (the computer)?
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
I am a (very tired) stupid fool. Whoops, a thousand apologies lusercop, I thought you were answering the questions, when you were merely asking good questions. Sorry...
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
On 17/11/02 23:21 +, David Cantrell wrote: If they're irrelevant I'll save time and space by not bothering to answer. I don't feel that these questions, or the addenda provided by MBM are in the least bit irrelevant, and I would tend towards reading alex's title as unnecessarily self-depracating. As a potential leader of London.pm, I would have hoped that you would apply a similar lenient reading to such postings, and do your best to accommodate the questioner. The worst criticism that I've ever seen levelled at london.pm is that the group has an image of being exclusive and unfriendly. Whether this accusation is fair or not, it is up to the group, and in particular its appointed leader to counter any such perceptions. I still remember keenly when I joined london.pm. I actually found the group by accident whilst browsing for some advice on a random, long-forgotten perl problem. I was a self-taught newbie perl programmer, with no real contact with other programmers. I have learnt an incredible amount by sitting and quietly watching this list, attending meets, both social and tech, and asking for advice and input occasionally. When I came to london.pm, I had no pre-conceptions, and over time found that I was prepared to deal with the slightly frosty air that sometimes permeates, because for every unhelpful bout of curmudgeonly mumbling, there were many valuable pieces of advice. If I hadn't persevered, I doubt I would have made some of the very good friends I have through this group, and I would probably still be toiling away in an extremely naive manner with perl. I think the single most important function of the group is to nurture its members, particularly new ones, and act as a community focus for them. We should be accommodating wherever it is even remotely possible. I can't be bothered is simply not good enough.
Re: irrelevant questions for candidates
The questions asked were: [a] What, in your eyes, is the worst thing that london.pm has ever done? (i) why? [b] What, if anything, would you have done to stop them from carrying out this heinous act, if you were leader? [d] What is the best thing that london.pm has done, and what will you do to try and make sure that it, or something similar happens again? The trouble with these questions are that they treat London.pm as if it is a single entity that thinks coherently or wields under a single form of control. Which it is not. It is a collection of people that listens more or less (depending on the phase of the moon) to one another. You cannot make or stop anyone in it from doing anything. It may be more accurate to say what is the worst thing members of London.pm have ever done, what is the best thing members of london pm have ever done and how I will help to ensure that more of the later than the former is more likely to happen again. We've done many good things in our time (YAPC::Europe, NMS, numerous tech meets to name just a few) and we've done many bad things, the worst of which is easily to cause harm to other people trying to do good things, both in our group and outside it. Before we go any further though, it's important to note we've also done a hundred and one small things that on their own arn't that big, but are, when looked at as a whole are just as important. The guy that sticks an extra fiver in the kitty when it's running low; The person who helps you debug your website; And the bot that cheers you up at work; All just as important as the big things - it's just they're less hard to quantify. When it comes down to it the only thing you can really do to encourage good things, and hopefully lessen the bad things, is to nurture the environment. The only thing London.pm really has is it's group culture - there's nothing else holding it together. Whilst the leader isn't in a position to singlehandedly change the culture, they are in a better position to do so (with the right help) than anyone else. Most of best things I've seen come out of London.pm have merely been 'bootstrapped' here, and then have gone off on their own. London.pm itself can't actually run a project - London.pm is too large and an indistinct group to actually control such a thing, but it's members can - and do - rise up from the ranks to take on a particular challenge. Now the question becomes how do we encourage more bootstrapping? Well, there are two basic things needed for a project to come about: An idea, and the ability of a team (or an individual with help when needed) to work on it. The first problem is something that can be addressed by having a more inclusive group. The more people (and the more people that are prepared to talk) with the more diverse views the more interesting ideas you tend to have. An important aspect of this is ensuring that group members are willing to discuss their ideas, rather than just responding with a bigoted remark. I personally don't see this kind of thing happen a lot on London.pm, but it does happen occasionally and is jarring when it does. I think one of the more important roles a leader has is to encourage people to encourage good social behaviour, and the exchange of ideas. The second important part of this is communication. It's important that people in London.pm be comfortable working together on things, and organising things. This is where my nefarious schemes to have things like code reviewing and mentoring come in. The more we can encourage people to work together the more they will be used to doing it, and the less barriers to entry there will be on individual projects. [c] What are your leaderly plans for penderel (the computer)? First off, I don't think I'm able to make a decision about this kind of thing without talking to the people involved in the project, and nor should I attempt to. penderel relies on good will and support from many people, and I won't make any assumptions without talking to them first. As of this time I have no plans to replace penderel, but this is simply because I don't have enough knowledge of the situation. I have plenty of hearsay and second hand knowledge, but I would really need to talk to the people involved in person and ask their advice. I'm not the kind of person that thinks just because someone is elected leader it instantly makes them better qualified to deal with the situation than those that have been dealing with it day to day. (i) who will have root? (ii) how will you go about making sure that people who aren't supposed to don't have root? I really don't thing it's a leader's role to make these kinds of decisions. It's the roll of the penderel sysadmin - and I wouldn't dream of dictating to someone the way they work. When it comes down to it *that* person is bestowing the trust so *that* person has to do it. Of course, the
