Gary,
There are user groups which completely ban consultants from leadership
positions. IMO this is a counter productive and non-sensical strategy.
As these user groups are non-profit (educational?) organizations I also
feel that this policy violates the spirit of non-profit status as I
understand it. I have heard opinions expressed at INTEREX meetings to
the effect that consultants should not have full membership rights in
INTEREX. These ideas concern me.
The reasons for treating consultants differently from others are frequently
left vauge or unstated. To treat someone as a second-class citizen for
vauge, unstated reasons strikes me as a sign of prejudice.
Chad's canidate position statement seemed to imply that there were too many
consultants on the INTEREX board and that this was a problem. Chad did
not offer reasons why this was a problem. Chad also lumped consultants
together in the same category with HP employees - IMO blurring a meaningful
distinction (one that I would be glad to explain). In fact, Chad tells me
that there are only two consultants and zero vendors currently on the ten
member board. This does not seem excessive to me.
> Chad has expressed his opinion and his view on how he believes Interex
> should be run. Whether I agree or disagree with him is not relevant.
As 1) I believed the direction Chad seemed to be going in was counter
productive and unfair and 2) Chad is running for the board
I am baffled as you why you seem to think that voicing a disagreement with
a potentially bad idea is not relevant? I find it very relevant
especially when a board canidate (one that I would otherwise probably
vote for) makes such an unfortunate statement.
Why is your disagreement with my reply to Chad now relevant? I suggest it
is all relevant. I note and thank you for what I took as a to reminder
to maintain civility.
Yours for a HP 3000 civilization (forever?) ;-)
- Cortlandt
P.S. Ok maybe the statement about "raw, naked prejudice" went over the
top on the rhetoric scale. We are but human. Can I take some ironic
comfort from the fact that you read and then quoted my statement about
being male and then repeatadly refered to me as "her"?
Chad and I have exchanged some messages privately and I hope that he will
issue a clarifying statement.
Gary Groves <[log in to unmask]> wrote in article
<BD508F998A36D0118378080009DCC9406A6761@SSEPO1>...
>
> I for one am offended by the tone this discussion has taken.
>
> Chad has expressed his opinion and his view on how he believes Interex
> should be run. Whether I agree or disagree with him is not relevant. I
> appreciate him expressing his opinion.
>
> Cortlandt seems to have taken Chad's position statement personally. It
> would seem to me that a more appropriate response from Cortlandt would
> be for her to issue her own vision statement for her candidacy. By the
> tenor of her response, "As a well educated [sic], white, American male
> perhaps I should thank you for this direct experience of raw, naked
> prejudice," she diminishes her argument.
>
> This is INTEREX for gosh sake not US Politics! Can we keep the
> discussion professional!?
>
> I do respect everyone willing to run for an Interex position. It
> requires additional work for anyone elected.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cortlandt Wilson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 4:59 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Warning: INTEREX Board Candidate
> >
> > Chad Gilles <[log in to unmask]> wrote in article
> > <[log in to unmask]>...
> > >
> > > I will try to keep this short,
> > >
> > > I am running for the INTEREX Board of Directors. >
> > > A short note about why I am running,
> > > <snip>
> > > Most importantly, I feel users groups (including INTEREX) should be
> > run
> > > by users, not consultants or HP. (I have nothing against HP or
> > > consultants, but I feel they should not have a dominance in running
> > an
> > > indpendent users group)
> > <snip>
> >
> > Chad,
> >
> > You seem to assume that running a user group is equivalent to
> > 'dominance'.
> > As INTEREX is dominated by 'ordinary' users rather than by
> > consultants and
> > all leadership positions are democratically elected how is such
> > dominance
> > achieved?
> >
> > How is 'dominance' by consultants worse that dominance by any other
> > special
> > interest group or individual with a agenda? What evidence can you
> > point
> > to that this is a particular problem? To the contrary, a number of
> > the
> > SIG leaders are consultants and to my knowledge they do a fine job.
> >
> > How do you define a 'user'? As a consultant or contract programmer
> > how
> > am I less a HP computer user than anyone else? If my consulting
> > company
> > owns a HP computer am I a user? A great many INTEREX members are not
> > the
> > owners of the HP computer that they use. What ensures that such
> > members
> > speak for the interests of the equipment owners?
> >
> > As a IT staff member I received a paycheck directly from my employer.
> > As
> > a consultant I now invoice my client and legally am paid by my
> > company.
> > How does this difference in the legal method of payment for my
> > services
> > make my opinion less valuable?
> >
> > Gee, can SIG Consult be run by consultants?
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > As a well educated, white, American male perhaps I should thank you
> > for
> > this direct experience of raw, naked prejudice.
> >
> > - Cortlandt Wilson
> > Cortlandt Software
>
|
