=- Jeffrey Watts wrote on Wed 20.Jun'07 at 14:01:36 -0500 -=

>> Otherwise people focus on minor or even irrelevant details to turn
>> attention away from the necessary issues and lose the big picture.
> You're encountering the same phenomenon for a different reason.
> Your emails are so sprawling that folks zone out while reading
> them and instead focus on the one thing that sticks out to them.
> They then only respond to that one.

This wasn't the case with James.
It started out compact (with introduction and epilogue, but both
could be skipped, added just for context).
James then covered all at once (good) _and_ added more (even better,
although in my "bad style"), but then complained that I responded in
the same "bad style" he had continued before me.

I can't help it that issues put in simple words don't mean the same
for everybody and therefore need clarification, but also need
patience and attention on the receiving/ requesting side when given.
 I prefer to give that rather than ignore requests.
 Should I give it up because the ideas don't get across at once or
simple words or people don't know what they want?

As it seems, you were able to understand my intentions.
So my explanations were not totally beyond recognition.

As for the others: when things are stuck, it needs change. Change
requires commitment. If one can't provide it to even talk about it,
then I'd prefer they'd make the way clear for somebody else to try.
It blocks interest when the current powers want to stick to their
authority but not take action.

> You're calling for a lot of leadership and organization but I
> think you fail to realize that you can't create this in a vacuum.

James mentionend "vacuum", too, but why? I'm not the only subscriber,
there is still a crowd around netrek, only that it is quiet (here on

Directors are not only about leadership and control, but moreso(?)
commitment and pushing/ pulling things forward, in the simplest form
by being informed and propagate updates for others to know.
 The rest of functionality would then practically come together, as
a perspective for the future.
 But such activities/commitments are at risk of being wasted when
they're not backed up by authority and support (somebody in the
background holding a finger on the red button to break it when it
comes to personal preference).

Maybe you should think about them more like project leaders:
a project can be planned before members get together, so they have
to be found (even assigned), and _then_ once things are moving have
an eye on them, too.

> Those kinds of structures need to be created AFTER things start
> moving, when the devs and admins start noticing that they're getting
> bogged down in organizational issues and feel the need to
> consolidate and coordinate to get things done. We're not there yet.

Joe had been committing himself intensively (time and money) already
for a long time, but it went mostly unnoticed until we accidently
discovered that (when the mac client began?).
	There were waves of playnetrek.org players before, but that
	wasn't backed up by netrek.org or anyone/-thing else.
Andrew has been working on the website + marketing, also with little
awareness by the rest of the trek world.
Client writers hacking independently next to each other (or even
Once in a while some brave idea/ effort pops up, but then fades away
Some oldies are still lurking around, waiting for something to happen.

Simply waiting for people to accidently stick around or get together
in a common revival project didn't work either. Should we just keep
sitting and waiting till Mars is in conjunction with Venus in the
house of Neptune (and let single activities pass in the meantime)?

When will participation / commitment happen?
When somebody else does the required overhead work to prepare the
big chunks in bite-sized pieces. We need to wag the dog.
Much like campaigning among players we have to among contributors.
Voluntarily little will happen, or else it would have had already.

> I think your ideas have merit. I think they're valid concerns. I
> think most of them are too early.

... "too early" ... or "too late"?
I've already seen so much time pass and few lone attempts fail
without significant change of state, wondering why. Now I know.

> If I were you I'd start much simpler. Push for one or two changes
> that will have short term benefits, and make a case for them. I
> need to emphasize "short term". Keep them simple.

D'oh, I thought I had: publicity, commitment/ participation.

> Volunteer your efforts in something as a method of building
> credibility.

I thought I had as far as it was possible ... and time permitted,
currently too busy to even respond faster.

> Just don't get frustrated when others don't immediately share your
> enthusiasm - you can easily go too far and alienate folks.

I'm patient. Otherwise I wouldn't be still around. ;)
If I went too far, people then shouldn't ask for more.
Other than that, I'd like more participation, even if only signaling
what they want or not, without doing some work for it themselves.
"too far": we should get moving sometime at all.

If nobody cares about netrek standards and cooperation anyway, so
shouldn't I. Screw beloved balance, let chaos, sturgeon, and borg
rule. ;)

> Anyhow, I think you're doing a good job but I think you're a bit
> overzealous and it's probably why you're getting some push-back on
> your ideas. :)

I do not express myself optimally every time, so I hope for
constructive feedback when asked for it rather than denial because
things grow or go too fast.
It's not the ideas that are pushed back, but personal commitment
beyond what currently is willed to be done or otherwise the game
changing beyond their interest, therefore status quo.
Don't want to change one or the other, what is left to change?

© 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.