Me three.

Me Four...!

I endorse the WC2  Admin Team 100%. They are doing a terrific job, it couldn't get any better. Praise ...Glory....and Thanks to Chansen, Pinga, and Mendalla. I hope the road ahead will run smoothly with no pot holes.

Hi crazyheart,

I also trust the three.  I haven't said anywhere that I don't.

My concern for transparency of process is not born out of a desire to control them it springs out of a desire to protect them.

Why?

Well let's consider the history of WonderCafe.ca and the issue of cliques.

How many times has it been alleged right here at WonderCafe.ca that some have greater privilege than others?  And now we are moving into a system where, if I can be blunt, those who have been the most heavily targetted as "favourites" actually do have hands on control.

Am I being naive to think that those complaints and concerns will magnify?

I'm willing to accept that an open democratic process might not be feasible in a virtual environment.  That being the case don't ask for input.  Just lay everything on the table as a done deal and make whatever corrections need to be made later.

That is how WonderCafe.ca operated.  All of us came in to pre-existing codes and guides so it isn't like we won't do so ever again.

So, just to reiterate.  It isn't that I don't trust Mendalla, Pinga or Chansen.  It is that I know others here don't and if those others see them picking and choosing moderators to police this place it won't be long before we hear the same squawking about persecution and favouritism.

And that is about all I'm going to say on that.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Glad to see things drifting back on topic. We will, as announced, keep this thread open until end of day tomorrow and we will start on the final draft for approval. So, another couple days to comment, question, and discuss the Council model.

Mendalla

Pardon me but I feel i have to say... You don't know that to be the case, and I think you're making a blanket statement for what a certain group of others thinks of a certain other group of others- there may be lingering trust issues, and it may also be that efforts are being made to overcome them or accept things we cannot change- and I don't think that's your place to make a judgment on where anyone concerned stands on that matter. I gather that 10 different people need to be chosen for the positions and there are only so many to choose from anyway. It won't make much if any difference if the current three chooses them or if we nominate people.

I stated what my preferences are: moderators (and or admins) who are fair minded, try to be somewhat flexible and do their best with support where needed. Beyond that it doesn't matter to me who takes on the roles.

[/quote]  You don't know that to be the case, and I think you're making a blanket statement for what a certain group of others thinks of a certain other group of others-  ...... and I don't think that's your place to make a judgment on where anyone concerned stands on that matter. [/quote]

God - give me strength - please.....

........

Hi Kimmio,

What don't I know to be the case Kimmio?  That there won't be allegations of skullduggery when certain folk feel shafted?  

I look at the three admins and I note that two do not identify as Christian at all and the one that does won't ever pass as a conservative Christian.  So, when a conservative Christian is nominated for a position, their friends don't get a chance to vote for or against them and then that conservative Christian fails to appear on the slate of officers what do you think is going to happen?

And when that nomination goes into a process which essentially takes place behind closed doors what do you think is going to happen then?

Yeah.  I'm probably just making it up.

May be?

I think it is my place, and a responsible place at that, to point out where those involved in the process leave themselves open to criticism.  That's what I have done.

That I could sit down now and type out several of the most likely suspects of where that criticism would come from is not what I have done.  I have simply pointed out where the process is not defensible from a democratic perspective.

If democratic isn't what is wanted fine, state that up front.

The consultation to date suggests a democratic process is desired so I really don't know why raising a concern is out of place.

My understanding is that this time around there are no vacancies in the Admin positions.  So we are looking for 5 Moderators and 1 Treasurer.

It is true that the selection may be on the thin side.

That said, it makes a ton of difference if those individuals are nominated from among their peers (meaning the whole of the membership) rather than a smaller group which is not reflective of the whole.  Especially if diversity is really that important.  I mean of the two I have met face to face they are both rather white and anglo.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Deleted

I know I am one of the folk who has had trust issues. That's a fact. I don't need to be reminded. I have been trying to overcome or just accept things I can't change. I really don't care who moderates, honestly, if those people try to be fair and flexible and do their best.

That said, if you want me to leave just say so. I'd rather that than be expected to suck it up and not point out where I see a problem, and be sugar and spice all the time. I'm a nice person but from time to time I have a critique to point out as well. I'd rather you tell me to get lost than be simply tolerated.

There are a few people I wouldn't mind staying in touch with. Maybe we can exchange email addresses through wondermail.

Seriously - how did revjohn pointing out that there will be trust issues for some (unnamed by him and which I think is self-evident, and which I think he's clearly explained) become you being asked to leave? There's a trust issue right there.

My goodness, I can't believe this. John was commenting - nothing more- nothing less.

Kimmio, I agree with you for once and you immediately consider leaving?

I'm not sure how to take that...

Rev Steven, he didn't ask me to leave. I am in a position here, quite clear to me, that others will tolerate my presence as long as I don't critique anything. I am a "trouble maker" or I get to read "Dear Lord give me strength" comments and such, unless I make platitudes. To me, that says, that I am not trusted, or at least not valued much. I'm getting that impression from enough people that I wish they'd either apologize to me and try to work on their own trust issues with me or flat out tell me to get lost. Is it more valiant or respectful to mention the "folk" with the trust issues without naming them even if it's stating the obvious? I don't know how other folk feel but that's how I feel. Can do without mere tolerance or politeness if my presence and comments are not valued and my past mistakes are held against me. I have been trying to overcome my trust issues but it doesn't appear to be expected of everyone.

'Twas a joke. Stick around.

3 three admins are in regardless until at least the next vote and seeing as they own and built the site that makes sense. There is not a huge choice for others, and they would have to be wiling to accept the job anyway or ask someone else- updates on who was asked and who accepts is enough. I am going to trust that the admins would be able to take that, plus diversity, into consideration. And in reality because of limited choices of reasonably active members on a small site, I doubt the outcome would be much different anyway, it's just going through extra motions for little benefit. Despite my own trust issues, they are mine to work on and come to terms with, I was trying to suggest making the process less complicated.

Kimmio - In your posts, that I have read, I frequently see you making 'blanket statements' about 'others'.  Also, I did not read revjohn's post as judgemental - just pointing out the obvious - the best predictor of future behaviour...is past behaviour.

Kimmio, I don't think it's you that John is primarily talking about.

I suppose that's true for everyone, Inukshuk. Has my behaviour really been considerably worse, more cutting or meaner, or ruder, than others? I'm trying to let go of the past but when I critique...well. Working on trust goes both ways.

Jae, maybe not specifically. It was vague. Doesn't matter. I am one who has trust issues to keep working on. I'm trying.

Hi Kimmio,

How did this conversation come to be about you and what you are doing?

Nowhere in my posting have I mentioned anyone by name.  I have said some do not trust Mendalla, Chansen and Pinga.

I was certainly thinking of folk when I made that statement (which I think fails to be either surprising or outrageous--save for Mendalla whom I cannot recall ever having a flame war with anyone) who those folk are is not even remotely important.  At least not to my mind.

What I find most important is the protection of reputation and having these three name a slate and not allow individuals to challenge any member of the slate leaves their reputation open to attack.  That attack will come.

They do not appear to be overly concerned about attacks against their reputation.  They appear to be more concerned by attacks against the overall control of the site.  On a certain level that is sensible and reasonable.  Leaving yourself open for vilification is neither sensible nor reasonable.

I certainly didn't name you as one lacking trust.  If you feel that my post is taking you on directly that is your imagination not my intention.  I'm willing to take responsibility for what I post.  I am not willing to take responsibility for what you imagine.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Was I not one of the people who have had trust issues that were openly stated in the past? Was I not named as a trouble maker along with others earlier in this thread for making critiques and asking questions? Then why would it be such a far stretch of my imagination that when you mention 'folk' who have done or might do this or that if we leave the selection to the three, I feel implicated or that others don't particularly value my presence here on equal terms with everyone else.

Hi Kimmio,

Any of that done by me?

Because we are now 5 pages deep in a conversation and in the four proceeding pages I did not address you nor was I addressed by you.  Now suddenly on page five when I still hadn't addressed you you leap to the conclusion that I have been talking about you.

That is not you owning your own stuff.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Kimmio, it was not your name that came to my mind when I was reading John's post to which you are responding. If John said he did not mean you, I'm inclined to believe him because I certainly did not think he meant you. You are welcome here and will be welcome over on WC2 when we get there.

And may I ask that we put this thread back on topic?

Mendalla

No one knows the future. Just because people have acted in certain ways in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to act in the same ways in the future. What's important is the here-and-now. Rich blessings.

John you were presenting your own opinion about the nominating process with 'folk' in mind for others to consider your opinion- which was that leaving it up to the three might leave them open to criticism. And people reading will make their own conclusions as to who the 'folk' you're vaguely refering to are. A few of us have been named trouble makers in this thread. Can you own at least that that might have been an oversight on your part or that you might be willing to recognize how I might have concluded what I did in relation to your post? I'm not trying to be a trouble maker. We all have our blind spots.

Kimmio, earlier in the thread you were included in a post which mentioned certain people as "making things difficult." For what it's worth, I think that was unjust. I think you were making valid contributions to the thread. I don't think you were "making things difficult." But I honestly have to say that when I read revjohn's post your name was not one which came to mind for me. While he may have certain people in his mind, I think the point he made was both general and valid - there will be trust issues with some people. That's inevitable. If you choose to read yourself into that comment, that is your choice. In my opinion, that was not his intention. At least I certainly didn't perceive it that way.

It may not have been but can you see how I might think it was? Or people on this thread might think so? I can see now after this exchange they would because it has been an uncomfortable exchange- even though my intention now is to clear this up- say I hope the trust issues can be worked on by all- not make trouble. When someone mentions "folk" who are members here who have trust issues but who they are is anyone's guess- it is those vaguely mentioned folk are who are not trusted. I gather by people's reactions to my posts if they are critiquing in any way, that I am not trusted here by some, to have a valid point to make.

Question - is lack of trust always an unwise thing. In some cases there may be valid reasons to not trust someone. Here I am also speaking generally.

Hi Kimmio,

Which is entirely them and not at all me.

I will own only what I have posted.  I will not own what others imagine me to have posted.

I neither mentioned you by name in four pages of dialogue nor conversed with you in four pages of dialogue and now it is my responsibility to get inside your head and take responsibility for what you were thinking?

I'm not doing that either.

You presumed I was talking about you.  You were wrong.  How is your presumption my responsibility?

I am confident I have never accused you of being a trouble maker.

As to the blind spot issue.  Yes we all have our blind spots.  We all have our own blind spots.  I don't hold you responsible for mine I'm not taking responsibility for yours.

If we aren't going to have conversation about what I actually have posted then lets not.   I have no interest in a conversation I have only been an imaginary partner of.

Grace and peace to you.

John

You may not have been conversing with me earlier in the thread but you were reading the comments- surely you were aware I was mentioned- indicating people don't trust me and others here. I wish you would recognize that the things you say do have implications for others, also, and vagueness to avoid naming someone doesn't always help or mean that what you're saying won't do damage. In order to avoid that you could've just said you'd prefer the original nominating model because it gives everyone a chance to chime in. You didn't have to mention trust issues involving people who may be on this thread and turn around and say it's my problem for imagining I could be one of the 'folk' you brought up. Doesn't help trust issues to heal. Anyway. I said my piece. I hope you consider it. I don't want to belabour it further. Have a good evening.

Huge thanks to Pinga, Mendalla, and chansen. I appreciate the time, hard work and thought that has gone into this document (and process overall). I have also read the comments on this thread and trust the admin team to take it from here.

Hi Kimmio,

This may come as something of a shock to people.  I read almost all comments on a thread I participate in.  I do not memorize very post of every thread I participate in.

Actually, I wasn't.  

Other than people addressing your posts directly I have no recollection of anyone bringing you up as an example of anything.

I just downloaded the whole thread to Word so I could use the search engine.  That makes things problematic because it brings up hits for your avatar as well.

Using that I did find Crazyheart saying:

I'm not taking responsibility for what Crazyheart posts.  I didn't even respond to that particular post as I was talking with Pinga about something else at the time.

At most all you should take away from crazyheart's post is crazyheart believes you, Redhead and Jae seem to like to make things difficult.  Moving that into a trust framework it is Crazyheart not trusting you, redhead and jae.

If you want to insist that Crazyheart is speaking for everyone I guess I cannot stop you.

I will point out that this is where you decide the conversation is more about what you are imagining than it is what is actually being discussed.

I am very cognizant of that fact.  Which is why I don't name names.  If I decide to call people out I don't hesitate to use names.  I'm no coward playing passive aggressive games.

And again, it is supremely unimportant to the conversation to name who is most likely to express a lack of trust.  I was concerned with mitigating the allegation and how that might be accomplished.

I don't need to say (for example) "because you know how Rev. Steven Davis is."

So far the only one doing damage around this Kimmio is you.  You are damaging yourself because of what you believe I was doing.  You are damaging me because now you are accusing me of doing something I most emphatically was not.

In fact, you are the only one posting to the thread who even remotely thinks I was talking about you.

Even being vague as I was nobody but yourself thought "Oooooo revjohn is calling Kimmio out."  Nobody but yourself.  Now either all of us, including myself are wrong and you are right or you are mistaken.

Since I can't get into your head I seriously doubt you are able to get into mine.  Which means when I say I wasn't pointing a finger at you I, better than anybody else, knows just how true I am when I say it.

That you think I am pointing the finger at you is your problem.  I wasn't and I have no intention of taking responsibility for it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks myst

You mentioned people feeling there is a clique issue or that the question of favourites might cause a problem and that it wasn't a question of you not trusting chansen, Pinga or Mendalla, rather, it was a question of not trusting those folks who have had past issues with that not to raise a fuss- and so you were protecting the three from those folks. (paraphrased) it is no secret that in the not to distant past, I was one of those folks in those discussions. That could be anyone who ever made a point about this place feeling cliquey or that there is favoritism. Seeing as I am a participant on this thread, it stands to reason I might assume you could be including me in your assessment. I accept that you didn't mean to single me out- but given that others don't trust me- partially because I raised strong objections on those threads in the past- and that lingers, it is not illogical for me to make the assumption I did based on what you posted, IMO. It did come off as passive aggressive to me. Can you see why? And neither is what you said helping my trust issues. Can you recognize why that might be also? You have opened up the trust issue wound, rather than letting it heal or encouraging healing, but as it turns out- it wasn't because chansen, Pinga and Mendalla are choosing moderators- but because there are people you don't trust not to make a fuss and you called them out in vague terms like the trust issues they might have had don't matter in keeping the peace here- but only protecting the three matter in your assessment. Can you see that? It's quite ironic, this conversation.

I'd rather just leave than fight this uphill battle.

Oh my goodness, I go to work for a day, and this thread goes crazy.  31 posts unread.  I thought, way cool, we are talking about the council.  Instead,I find it isn't.

I am not going to get into the conversation.

What I would ask if if there is a perceived slight, please take it elsewhere, and let the council discussion continue or naturally close.

Seriously.

Sheesh - I think some people (like me) are just plain tired of winter and missing those opoortunities to go out for a walk with no coat, no boots, no hat, no mitts!

I'm not going to stop there. I shall find a private, enclosed garden, and stroll through the day au naturel.

Hello...

I am pleased to support those who have stepped forward as together we have imagined something quite remarkable. The language is clear and concise, something I appreciate.

We are in a process of discovery, building on a pattern not fully disclosed before stepping out.

We will shape our destiny as a community of conversation, not by the spelled out particulars, but by the effective engagement of persons respectful of persons and keen on discarding what hinders to more clearly express what helps.

George

Just a minor note:  The admins are trying our best to go back through this thread and pick out the recommended / general consensus type revisions in order to prep for the vote.  

Our hope is that we can do so, and we are thankful for those who have worked through language, proposing alternatives, considering process.  Your voices are important and it is good to see how folks move through a topic.  It helps us all.  Your process mirrors some of what we did in voice/phone call.  You also came up with suggestions that were improvements on our language, or showed where sentence structures drove questions.  

Again, thanks for those who took the time to dive into topics.  

Hi Kimmio,

That is purely your invention.  I have not said anywhere in this thread that I do not trust folk to not raise a fuss.  Nor have I said that I trust anyone to raise a fuss.

What I have said is the process, as it currently stands, does not protect against such a fuss.

Yes.  It is illogical.  It is illogical for you to hold me responsible for what I have not posted.  It is illogical for you to read a post from someone else and put their sentiment in my mouth.  It is illogical for you to make an assumption and then expect me to take responsibility for it.

I don't hold you responsible for what others post.

I don't hold others responsible for what you post.

I refuse to carry your baggage.

Because it was entirely your imagination and that is what you decided to see.  I'm not responsible for that Kimmio.

I'm not responsible for your lack of trust.

If it helps you to blame me go ahead.  I pointed out where they make themselves vulnerable and that forces you to assume I'm accusing you of something.  And now I'm the one preventing your trust issues from healing because I have somehow betrayed a trust by not accepting responsibility for something I have not done.

I have no clue what the hell is going on in this conversation anymore.

By protecting the three from the allegation I protect others from thinking of making it.  I'm not playing favourites I'm playing smart and I'm managing risk for all involved.  Such allegations hurt those making them as much as they hurt those they are made against.

You can try to speak from inside my head and knowing how I think.  You are not at all convincing.

Sorry Kimmio I fail to see the irony.  I'm accused of saying something I never said about somebody I never said anything about all because I thought there was a possibility of complaint.

If anything I find the conversation tragic.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Have a closer look at this post and consider why I might have felt included in your assessment- which appears to lack trust that squawking would happen, in order to protect people from such skwuaking- and now. And you said it to someone who had just swuaked at me for making an innocuous comment. But you didn't notice the skwuaking at me or others, who have also had feelings in the past about favoritism but have also been trying to, IMO, get past the problems of the past. In this post you were not keen to let those past problems heal and notice that 2 of us who had favoritism issues in the past are saying we trust the three to choose moderators wisely. I am, ironically, now skwuaking because you don't see your own error. You came across as cynical. It may not have been intentional but your own post wasn't constructive for those of us, me at least, who are trying to trust that my presence here is not futile and give others the benefit of the doubt. I realize my feelings are not your problem. Except you were keen to protect chansen, Mendalla and Pinga from criticism- that's fine, you care that they are not barraged with criticism, but consider those whose feelings you passed over. I am sorry to be so critical but I wish you would notice this.

ok, at this point, let me be explicit.

Kimmio & Revjohn.  Can you please take this back & forth elsewhere?  Start a thread, put a link here, i don't really give a hoot how you do it.

but, please, enough?

Deleted