[PLUG] What PLUG needs

Russell Senior seniorr at aracnet.com
Mon Jun 10 20:50:20 PDT 2002


>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Anuskiewicz <neil at pacifier.com> writes:

Russell> More effective _at what_?

Neil> That is not up to me to decide. That would be for the officers
Neil> and the members of PLUG.

But what would you _like_ them to be more effective at?  You must have
some sense of why you want these officers.  It isn't obvious to me
that PLUG isn't being "effective", so I don't really see the need for
change for the sake of change.  Show us why officers are necessary
and/or desirable.

Russell> I disagree that PLUG needs "official" officers.  David does a
Russell> fine job of coordinating things.  The danger of the kind of
Russell> bureaucracy you are suggesting is that someone gets into a
Russell> position of "authority" and then for whatever reason
Russell> (e.g. "burnout", "distractions", "malice", etc.)  becomes an
Russell> "obstruction".  No authority, no obstruction, people with the
Russell> energy just "do".

Neil> Yes, and David could stand for election and be elected. He could
Neil> then ask what the group wants to see happen and coordinate
Neil> making it happen. This is *not* in any way denigrating his
Neil> leadership.

Neil, maybe David doesn't _want_ to become the servant of the group.
Maybe he likes doing what he is doing, sees that it is effective and
contributes towards his goals and is satisfied with that.

Neil> I think we need leadership that is directly accountable to the
Neil> members.  

We _have_ leadership (or not) that is accountable.  Someone has an
idea and either people agree and help or they don't and don't.  I
think it works pretty well and pretty organically, with not a lot of
overhead.  Unless you can come up with some desireable goal that can't
be accomplished with the organic leadership we have now, then I don't
see why we should change.

Neil> As for my big speakers idea, yes, that could possibly be one of
Neil> the goals.  If we had officers then yes we could recruit more
Neil> officers.

Did you mean to say "speakers" there?  Do you have any evidence that
not having "officers" is preventing us from getting desirable
speakers?


-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr at aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      




More information about the PLUG mailing list