On 5/16/14 12:13 AM, Matt Disney wrote: > It's so easy to beat up on LOPSA or its leadership. I want to say, that from *my* perspective, all efforts, save one or two isolated ones (in these recent conversations) have been positive and seem to all be done in an effort to move the boat along in a positive manner.
If any of my comments/opinions seem to be otherwise, I apologize. I want to make it clear that my efforts are intended to be positive. If I see something negative, I try to highlight it and offer positive alternatives. (Okay, I don't always succeed but I do try.) > The simple fact that LOPSA continues to sustain itself is a collective > statement that people in our industry want to work together, that > we're eager to make our industry stronger, that we want advance the > profession, and that we believe we can do all those things. I *personally* feel that this is not a well crafted statement. The fact that LOPSA continues very well could be that it is too [insert negative adjective describing cognitive ability] to lie down and die. (Not that I hope for this.) I do hope that your observation *is* true and we can make this thrive better. > I suggest we establish a procedure for developing: > > 1. Quick position statements on public policy [...] > > 2. Technical briefs of things for the IT community, [...] > > 3. Position papers on technologies or methodologies [...] I agree with all three items. I suspect it would be hard to not agree with them. While reading these points, in the background I have the news on and it seems serendipitous that these three things would/could/should be applied to the current issue of the FCC's vote on what has been called "Net Neutrality". There's a lot of *crap* surrounding it and this might be an ideal topic to use, even if it is only internally for the moment, as a springboard for developing these skills. One of the things that this *may* offer us is the chance to see how the membership can/cannot respond to such things when they're employed by an affected target of the topic. It might also be a good chance for a point/counterpoint type of discussion, hey, maybe make it public, where two people can debate the *technical* aspects of both sides of the issue? > The ideas were well-received but the Board essentially voted for our > top priorities Not directed at you Matt but at the general populous. What *are* those top priorities? It should not be left as an exercise for the reader to guess. :) > (Sorry for such a long email!) Do not apologize. I find it more aggravating to run into the top posted and untrimmed responses. :) -- << MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mtiernan Non Impediti Ratione Cogatationis Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -Robert A. Heinlein _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
