SUO: Procedure Work Programme (AKA Your Effort)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
I suspect that you probably know what's really going on here,
but just for the sake of those who are seeing this pattern
of conduct for the first time, I will give my description
as I see it, and as I have seen it now more times than
I can count. It's the sort of dynamics that one can
find discussed as a textbook case in any beginning
textbook of Organizational Dynamics -- see the
Chapter on "Dysfunctional Organizations".
The SUO Working Group is caught between a "public agenda" (PA)
and a "hidden agenda" (HA), also known as the "espoused goals"
or the "explicit rules" on the one hand, and the "real goals"
or the "implicit rules" on the other hand.
Jim Schoening and his axis are in possession of a hidden agenda:
Their real goals and their unwritten rules have very little
positive relationship to the announced, deliberated, and
duly approved purposes and procedures of the SUO WG.
Whenever motion in the SUO Working Group takes place in the general
direction of the hidden agenda, it is allowed to pass unhindered.
Whenever motion in the SUO Working Group takes place substantially
in some other direction, it is obstructed by all means possible,
usually of a coercive, irrational, offlist, personally directed,
and unreasoned sort.
In recent days, just preceding the "Thanksgiving 'Em Hell Sneak Attack"
that began with Jim's first salvo in my direction on 26 November 2003,
we had begun to make a small amount of progress on the Procedure Doc.
That, I submit, is the real problem here, that is to say, the real problem
here for those who maintain the hidden agenda of Jim Schoening and his axis.
According to the time-honored textbook Tactic, they have emitted
their diversionary smokescreens and their Psy-Op clouds of dust,
duly elected a scapegoat, or maybe it's two by now, and proceeded
to Collateral Damage all of the usual Innocent De-Liberatees.
Anyway, we all know how it goes.
Now we see the second wave of e-strikes. The Procedure Work Project,
deliberated at length in Open Forum, duly voted on, and approved by
the full membership, is being "invited" -- no force at all, just yet --
to tag itself with pro forma armbands, and transport itself to a more
convenient urlocation, out of sight, out of mind of the Elite Corps
of More Elect Than Other Equal Citizens.
If you haven't yet figured out "what silence assents to",
the go see the movie 'The Pianist'. It tells a gripping
story, in the beginning, of just how silently a massacre
can begin -- though I object to the facile reconciliation,
no doubt pasted on the ending by market savvy producers,
that makes WW2 out to be nothing more than some kind of
"unscheduled interruption in our regular offering of
classical music programming".
In the US, y'know, we do not normally ask a candidate to decide
whether he won a disputed election. We usually ask his brother.
By tomorrow afternoon or so, the Sole-Self-Appointed Legislator,
De Jure Prosecutor, Supreme Court "Justice", and Demander in Chief
Schoening will have interpreted the consensus of the Silent Majority
to be in his favor, not to mention "God's Own Logic" being on his side,
as represented by the 3rd person of its messiah who walks so silently
among us, and he will declare the War Over with himself the Victorola,
to whom all the rest of you recursive curs must listen for the words
of your master. Do you think I over-dramatize? Well, give it time.
On the occasion of your appointment to pariah status,
I formally invite you to join my motion for the Chair's
resignation.
While you still have a chance ...
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> I note your request to move the work on the procedures project away from the main list.
>
> I do not really think this would solve any problem.
>
> 1. The procedures work should be the concern of the whole group.
> In my view voting members have an obligation to be involved
> in their development.
>
> 2. It does not address the signal to noise ratio of Jon's posts.
>
> 3. I assume you are receiving some complaints about
> Jon's contributions that I have not seen and are
> not public. I could only wish that they would
> devote their time reviewing and commenting on
> the Procedures Document instead.
>
> 4. I might be critical of the manner of many of Jon's posts,
> but he has undoubtedly contributed much to the procedures
> document. Certainly more than any of his detractors.
>
>
> Matthew West
> Principal Consultant
> Shell Information Technology International Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> Sent: 26 November 2003 04:37
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: Your effort
>
> Matthew,
>
> Could I suggest you move the discussions on your procedures effort to the
> SUO-Policies@ieee.org list. That list was originally set up for the SUO
> Policies and Procedures Subgroup to discuss policies and procedures, so
> your effort would fit well there.
>
> Another option is to create a new list just for your effort.
>
> Jon is posting just far too many messages to the main SUO list.
> I can't begin to read them all, but I believe they are associated
> with your effort.
>
> If you can reach consensus amongst those who subscribe and follow your effort,
> you can bring back summaries to the full SUO list.
>
> Jim
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o