=- Mark Mielke wrote on Sun 12.Aug'07 at 19:54:17 -0400 -=

> I think you are showing some confusion over how organizations of
> many sorts function. I am going to provide some details for you to
> consider.

Thank you very much, you mostly (if not completely) matched my view
on that.

> A friend of mine, who is a free mason would say: The organization
> has secrets. The organization is not secret. :-)

As for "the council": it was. It didn't exist or wasn't mentioned
when I began requesting definition and authority (and possibly
control), but as you can read, it appeared in the meantime without a
notice, which would have silenced me quickly.

> As a board member, we keep secrets both for the benefits of the
> organization, and due to government requirements.
> {internals vs. public affairs}
> Other examples are strategy meetings, or meetings where the board
> will agree on a stance to have as a board with one voice.

Now, what qualifies for public interest?
I thought a stance on "borg" definition and treatment of its usage
or complaints about it would apply.
Are Paradise (or any) clients considered borg and should be changed
for Netrek?
Does anyone care enough to control it (socially or technically)?

You know, despite being a Paradiser primarily, I still love to play
the simple old game, too, but wouldn't want to be denied because my
client is clienta-non-grata, or spammed by purist fanatics trying to
fight off socially what they can't have technically: monopoly of
game style.

> At our meetings throughout the year, we try to invite the public,
> but there is no guarantee that the public will be allowed to speak.
> {...}
> Members of an organization must no[t] confuse their membership as
> a right to speak.

I want to hear/ read first what is there before I can/ want to speak.
But when there is nothing...?

> See the minutes from any meetings and see how they can be read in
> 5 minutes or less, for a meeting that took 60 minutes or more to
> complete. What happened to the other minutes? Where are all the
> subtleties? What of all the inside jokes that were cut, because
> they might be offensive or misconstrued? These are all "secrets".
> Stuff that the minute taker didn't feel you needed to know.

... and I don't want to know _that_!
But I want to see those 5 minutes!
I haven't seen any 1 of it yet.
Or if there was, there are still some ignoring it and complaining
about the passivity of the "council" but for opposite reasons than

> In terms of Netrek - I wasn't aware that any official Netrek
> organization or committee existed.

I wasn't looking for a legal entity, but real persons making real
decisions and taking real action on it, for everybody to know and
shut up so to find their own way: with or without the council.
But this clearity hasn't become real yet.

> {...} and I don't think there is any official entity, whether a
> person, or a business, who *owns* Netrek.

But the resources the current community runs on.
And the place/ name they run in/ under to be found easily.

> Which also means that James, and the "secret council" also have
> many rights. In particular, just as *you* have the right to
> collect a few like minded people, meet at a bar, and discuss the
> future of Netrek, so do they have this same right.

I'm not denying that, just want to know what they are up to and
whether we can get/ stay together or not.

> There is no requirement that they provide location and time to all
> players at least 5 business days in advance. There is no
> requirement that they ask your opinion.

No, but their results and _their_ opinions would help already!

> James has this authority. {...} I accept him, and find myself
> offended by statements you have made about him that hint at
> malicious intent.

The problem is there was no intent at all to judge it.
Inactivity isn't malicious by itself, it just isn't useful.

> If James and a few other share this respect, and elect to meet
> amongst themselves in private, they are fully within their right
> to do so *without* condemnation from you.

I'm not condemning him at all, but if, it would not be for what he
does, but what he didn't do thereafter: make results public, since
they affect the public, even if only for the climate of treating
each other.

> I would suggest using a more respectful tone in order to maximize
> effectiveness.

If questions alone are disrespectful, I can't stop that.
It all developed from asking simple questions.
What, who, why not, how else?

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.