Re: r0d3nt starting services without discussion

>>>>> "db" == Da Beave <beave@xxx> writes:
>>>>> "r" == r0d3nt  <ratman@xxx> writes:

    db> to the state it was pre-power-outage.

excuse me?  There was a power outage?  I thought this was the reason:

     r> Yes, I shut down my part of the network with absolutely no
     r> intention of returning,

Or do you just think I should consider r0d3nt's unilateral unwarned
shutdown of all his equipment, and the chaos it caused, a completely
irrelevant bit of history compared to the question of whether or not
we want him running services now?

    db> I thought you where about to put services back online because
    db> of all this mess?

I offered a few times that I could do it quickly, but zero people
said, ``yes, carton, please do,'' so I did not.

The difference is, r0d3nt did not post an offer to the list at all.
He just did it.  And in spite of the fact he didn't offer, a couple
people read his mind and voiced up anyway to say ``no, we don't want
it on r0d3nt's box this time.''  I can refresh your memory:

>>>>> "c" == Miles Nordin <carton@xxx> writes:
>>>>> "rd" == rdnzl  <rdnzl@xxx> writes:
>>>>> "s" == Seth Hardy <shardy@xxx> writes:
>>>>> "sa" == Sebastian Arndt <afnet@xxx> writes:
>>>>> "mf" == elmar -mc fly- lecher <> writes:
>>>>> "c" == Miles Nordin <carton@xxx> writes:

     s> lol

     c> Since no one answered, can I assume everyone except me wants
     c> to keep services on r0d3nt's box?
     c> If someone besides me also thinks we should move services,
     c> please speak up now.  I believe the problems I have with
     c> services on r0d3nt's box will be harder to resolve, not
     c> easier, if we try to do it later.
     [that was from 2007-05-17]

     [and this from a few days after Beave's ``power outage'' when 
      blackbeard magically reappeared with no discussion]
     c> I do not think blackbeard should be relinked until r0d3nt
     c> engages in discussion here.  This can make the network less
     c> stable because r0d3nt might shut it off again when things
     c> don't go his way

    rd> I'm 100% with carton on this.

    rd> I'd like to have r0d3nt on the hackint network with maybe 1 or
    rd> 2 servers representing the 2600 part. I suggest to run
    rd> services - so they are wanted after all - on a neutral place
    rd> to be determined by all admins via discussion on this list.

    sa> we should put services at the flash host. on flash we have
    sa> more admins wo can contrib stuff smash,rdnzl and me. so there
    sa> one admin should always there to fix and support.

     s> this [r0d3nt's post about owning services quoted above] sounds
     s> very suspiciously like "don't take away my toys! i want to be
     s> able to shut them down without notice!" i don't see how
     s> there's any illogical action here-- people don't want you to
     s> hang that threat over their heads.

    mf> r0d3nt did not behave very well at all. We had a
    mf> massive netsplit over more than 12 hours due to the lack of
    mf> communication.  r0d3nt added and removed o-lines without
    mf> discussion. We expect a proper excuse from him and that he
    mf> promises that it will not happen again. 

What's more, let's review what you said, Beave:

    db> I thought you where about to put services back online because
    db> of all this mess?

if you/r0d3nt believed as you say that I intended to put services back
online myself without further discussion (which, it turns out, is flat
wrong), then that means you knew what you were doing would be
controversial and upset people, yet you did it anyway---you suggest
you were basically racing to see who could get services up first,
making himself the de-facto services owner, which is even more
unacceptable!  It's like strategic nonparticipation instead of just
pig-headded nonparticipation.

For future reference the words I'll probably choose if I've
already-done or about-to-do something with no more discussion will
come in one of two forms:

``I have just squit services.  [reasons]''

    This form invites people to say, ``you did what?  what the hell!
    You should not, and your reasons suck.  How soon can we undo it?
    What damage has it caused already?''  Thus, I expose myself to
    immediate correction after taking a controversial action.  And
    people know what the fuck is going on!  Double plus good!

    Whenever r0d3nt does something of the sort, what follows is a post
    from me saying ``r0d3nt has just done [xxxx].  The consequences
    are [blah] and our options are [bleh].''  <-- not my job.
    shouldn't happen at all.

``Unless someone really objects, I intend to re-add sj's O:line soon.
I spoke about this before [blah] and [blah] and it's actually a bigger
problem in the long term to not do it becuase [blah].''

    This form invites people to say, ``I don't want you to do that,''
    or ``I know others who haven't spoken up yet definitely don't want
    you to do that,'' or ``you make sense, but let's wait at least
    three more days before doing that''.

    I have never seen a post of this form from r0d3nt.  If r0d3nt is
    going to continue doing shit, I need to see a lot more of these
    kind to feel like he is engaged.


    db> I don't think it's a "services are mine!" issue.

yet maybe you can understand some might see that issue, since r0d3nt
has said they are his:

     r> I disagree, this environment of hate and trashing of admins
     r> and groups on this network does not precipitate the need to
     r> move services.

     r> I reacted to protect the neutrality and the equipment I host.

     r> Access to the boxes has always been transparent and available
     r> to trusted admins and people who wanted to be involved...


     r> The majority of the users hosted by this network are still USA
     r> based, and 2600 and telephreak. Moving services in this
     r> environment or due to my reaction to the abuse of my equipment
     r> is illogical.

oh, also, from 2007-05-16:

     r> Blah blah blah.

     r> You are a guest on my machine, I'm the primary admin for
     r> services and the ircd and OS. I was using ssh as an
     r> example.. and I'm not continuing this Miles.


     r> This discussion stops here.

[That was when he was explaining that he was a Hub operator and i was
a Leaf operator, which set us on different levels of the command
chain.  He was noting my ``advice'' and such.]

Finally, why am I talking about this with you, Beave?  Why is r0d3nt
still not posting here?  Is this not a complete waste of my time?

I promise, then, that the next response to an email like this from you
will be, ``I have just ignored everything you've said and suggest
others do the same.  I need to hear from r0d3nt himself.''

    db> We can talk about it for several weeks if need be.  :)

I have two ideas for how you can shorten the time it takes to talk
about it.

  (1) read the existing discussion to determine the opinions of
      others, then have some respect for those opinions.

      Some of it is quoted above, but you could read it in the
      original, too---if we'd all done that, we'd have two less
      messages, yours and mine.  And r0d3nt would not have tried to
      unilaterally power-flip services back on last night.  saves
      time!  especially mine!  fuckers.

  (2) post and wait for a response before doing something that's
      probably controversial.

  (3) r0d3nt should engage the list, and use it to offer and accept
      suggestions, not only to make decrees.  As far as speeding
      things up, it's not really a substitute to have Beave or other
      friends post for him, dramatically invite me to have some
      smoky-room phone teleconference with a few select members
      (can't.  personal policy from last May: I'll have no private
      conversations with r0d3nt.)  smokyroom sutff which all has to be
      repeated again on the list where, surprise, not everyone agrees
      on decisions made without them!  

      and not demand love and respect and attention on #ircnets which
      is off-topic and, like the telecon, also does not include all
      members.  Doing these things instead of engaging the list with
      willingness to compromise slows things down.  He's still not
      doing that, and yet, very generously people are still trying to
      include him by following him into smoke-filled rooms. <-- This
      also slows things down IMHO, but it is good of you to try.

None of these three things are happening, so there is plenty of room
left to speed things up on the list, and I suggest we go that
direction.  These positive steps are a good alternative to making
controversial decisions unilaterally with a shell prompt just because
you are in a hurry to ``do something''.

Attachment: pgpiaS8taYROD.pgp
Description: PGP signature