Cristian Driga wrote:
I would like us to have as a response to what happened a more action
oriented approach and actually bring to life better processes and
improve things, rather than endlessly get stuck in discussions about how
and why something was done in a certain way.
But you still need to figure out what went wrong, so you can write a
procedure to make it not happen again. Others have suggested important
parts of a procedure, like having a warning with time to correct any
problems, and a hearing where you can have a friend argue in your
favour, and having a transparent process. I would also add that we need
a clear picture of what exactly can get you fired. It has to be clear,
fair, and applied consistently.
Looking at "What do MarCons do?" and Jacqueline's letter to Ryan, I see
some problems. "What do MarCons do?" is too vague to be used as a basis
for sacking a MarCon. For example, Jacqueline says that Ryan didn't
communicate enough. Ryan says that he did, and responds to Jacqueline's
examples. Also, the reasons for being fired must be seen to be fair. Do
most people feel that being part of ODF is a good reason to sack a
MarCon? If so, is Jacqueline going to sack all the other MarCons who are
in ODF? Reasons for sacking a MarCon must be applied consistently.
Ian has experience with procedures, this is part of what he does. And he
offered to help write some. Is anyone interested in taking up his offer?
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ A life? Sounds great!
\/_/ Do you know where I could download one?
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
