Comments on Chat with Randy
 

From the Chat with Randy transcript:

dhammer53
question...Many flyertalkers are asking about the TalkBoard. When will replacement members be named?

Randy Petersen
I thought we were friends.....HA! Only kidding since i should have figured i'd get "Hammered" on this question. Let's remember that there are currently 7 members on the board, a fairly large number to make the decisions we need. Of that 7, 6 of them are elected. I think there has been a misconception over the replacements. Currently the elected board represents all FlyerTalkers. My choice to replace those that resigned in my mind is not required since the elected members are the majority. I haven't answered your question. Since it seems there can be no resolve until this issue is answered, I guess I'll give in and remove myself from being the apparent roadblock. I resent the movement to make this an issue, but will take the high road. I'll name three replacements next week. My resistance to do so is because i don't know other members as well as those i appointed and it turns out i didn't know them well enough. I don't like getting embarrassed or playing politics since i think FlyerTalk is better than that. If these other members don't perform to your satisfaction - blame me again, I'm an easy target. Sure, I'm a little testy on the topic but I'll live through it.....next question.
________________________________________

I don't like what I am reading here at all.

I handle my life and businesses with the utmost integrity and diligence. The same way I handle my projects, spare time and my positions on company Boards.

To suggest for even a moment that Rudi, Pam (svpii) or myself played politics, didn't perform to member's satisfaction or embarrassed you really bewilders me.

I know both Pam and Rudi and it makes me mad to even suggest the above about them. This 'high road' thing is baffling.

Regards,

Dorian

[This message has been edited by Dorian (edited 01-20-2002).]

I do not have the inside scoop on this issue, but I too was baffled by the "hammered" and "high road" comments. It seemed like an innocent question.

I also do not know the inside scoop on this.

But having been involved in the long dead and buried past in a separate project with those mentioned, I can completely understand Randy's comments...especially about not knowing people as well as one thought.

Then again, maybe these folks were just "testing limits" again, and really not in any way responsible for their actions. After all, if one is only conducting a self imposed, unannounced "test" one can behave anyway they want and still claim to be on the "high road".

(Apologies to anyone I may have confused, but this was a point that needed to be made even if only to the few that understand.)


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 01-21-2002).]

Dorian. I'm a little surprised that you take any exception to my comments since I don't see your name there and it also looks like you are speaking for Pam and Rudi and I also don't see their name mentioned. As for the politics, I don't see where you were mentioned in the question I was asked. This question has been asked of me many times before and you know personally that I've answered it always the same way: that I don't feel I know any other members well enough to appoint them and would rather not simply appoint for appointment sakes. The politics you are referring to are trying to work within the guidelines that I set up in which I said that the TB would consist of elected members and appointed members. I think my original statement is that I reserved the right to appoint these additional members but surely could make a decision to not to if I had what I thought was good reason. The appointment of these members is the political system - it's not about individuals. If you were to really read into something, why not read that I don't feel any other members I could appoint would be as good a choice than the ones I originally appointed. To this day and for many days beyond, I stick by my original appoinment of you, Pam, Rudi and Punki.

Dorian. I appointed you because I have in the past and continue to think highly of your contributions to FlyerTalk and the overall experience of the members here. I was dissapointed to see you resign from the board before you put into play the ideas you had, but nowhere on this board or with members outside the board have I said anything less of you because of that. This is the second thime that something like this has come up and you run in front of it. You can run in front of me anytime you want, but the results will always be the same - you will not cause an accident with me. You are a good FlyerTalker, enjoy that and please don't try to feel like a victim - it's not there and it's not you. Your continuing contributions to FlyerTalk in a positive way are enough for me and in the long term even outweigh a term as a member of TalkBoard.

Randy: I sat on my hands today, but didn't want to leave Dorian taking any heat on my account. Please read this from the perspective of the appointed members: “My resistance to do so is because i don't know other members as well as those i appointed and it turns out i didn't know them well enough. I don't like getting embarrassed or playing politics…”.

While it is true none of us were mentioned in the question from DHammer to you, it is also true that this reference to us by you reads rather negatively. How should I have interpreted the comments above other than to conclude that in your opinion we somehow failed you and FT? I don’t believe that Dorian was attempting to step in front of anything – merely asking why you would make such a comment? Your post above suggests a disconnect between your thought process and your actual phraseology. That is to say, you state your reference to being embarrassed and playing politics was not, in fact, associated w/ us as individuals, in spite of the textual association. OK - I'll accept that at face value, but I would think on re-reading your original comments, you could also see how a different reaction might be commonplace. Consequently, I don't believe we're reacting as pseudo-victims, but rather as individuals merely questioning why they are presumably being slurred.

I appreciate your kind words later in your post regarding the appointed members. I don’t feel a need to protract this conversation – quite the contrary. But I did want to chime in and state that I, too, had a head-scratching reaction to your comments.

It was unfortunate that I was unable to maintain my position on TalkBoard. But I think each of us who have resigned gave 100% effort during our tenure, and have consistently expressed our desire to see it succeed and be beneficial to FlyerTalk.

Thanks very much for attempting to clarify the situation for everyone, Randy! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Respectfully, Randy, my reading is/was simply that many FT'ers truly felt only that the great momentum perhaps was being slowing eroded away, and they showed only a real and constructive concern that we move ahead as swiftly as possible! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


Truly, many had asked what was meant by this as it was not very clear at all! Certainly not to me, but I feared that it might have been a possible misinterpretation of Dorians dream! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Collectively we FT'ers, and I speak only for myself of course, wanted simply to move forward ASAP as I saw it!

To whatever extent we may have perhaps "pushed" or pressured you seemingly unduly, please understand that it was not the intent and I, for one, do apologize! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


FWIW, this possiblity is in part why I'd made my earlier suggestion as you may recall:

"Perhaps the top three candidates who ran initially and yet did not receive quite enough votes would do nicely?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/000024.html


Is it possible that we are sometimes all, despite being VERY well intentioned, just a bit overly sensitive as well? Possibly! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Knowing the people involved, I'd surely surmise that they, like you did exactly what they thought was clearly best for FT and for everyone who participates and lurks! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Again, FWIW, I sincerely believe Randy is now very much aware of our collective desire to get the TB moving ahead just ASAP and the specific need to expeditiously address the three current TB vacacies:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000623.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000637.html

The second thread above includes the current TB members and also the original candidates. And no, I did not ever run.

FWIW, I do personally feel that we are possibly losing some useful momentum on issues such as Moderators, Buzzworthiness, and so on. Yet, as I'd noted before, we did get the "smilies" back, and you'll recall, "Rome was not build in a day!

Randy will surely do, as he has, what he feels is in the very best interests of the future of FT and ALL FT'ers - just as soon as he decides what that is!

So, as difficult as it often is for me, I'm gonna' try to continue being as patient as possible and supportive as well. After all, it's the best available choice, right?

Have a great day all!

Randy
For whatever it is worth, it has been shown, that the optimum number of people on a committee, etc. is 5 for decision making.

Dorian et al: Whatever problems exist between the parties in question it appears to me that these have become of a personal nature. I fail to see the relevance of public discussion on these personal matters and therefore suggest that further communication be taken to a private sphere.

Yes, but it took a committee of 9 to arrive at that answer!

Reminds me of the old definition of a camel: a horse designed by committee http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

When the one party makes public comments which the other may possibly interpret as being disparaging, then the matter has become public already.

FewMiles..

------------------
[ FlyerTalkers' Resources on the Web ]
[ Unofficial Guide to AAdvantage ] [ Unofficial oneworld Info Desk ]

Goldlust,

What business is this of yours?

Randy's comments were _very_ public and I have every right to respond publically.

Dorian

I suppose it's as much or as little of my business as of most other posters to this thread. I guess since I am on the TalkBoard and this is TB related then perhaps it's even a little more my business - but at least I thought I would have as much of a right to comment as the next person.

If you did not want people to post in the thread, then why did you start it?

I started this thread in Randy's forum so he would answer. That is what this forum is for Goldlust. "Only Randy Petersen"...pretty simple really.

The device you are looking for, to send a private question to Randy, is known as E-mail.

To post a question in an open forum invites comment - especially when one behaves in a baiting, "holier than thou" manner.

But if you want the right to make public comments AND the privilege to have no one else add theirs, I guess what you're looking for is your own website. Please let us all know when you have one, so we can ignore it and not comment on your opinions as you wish.

[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 01-23-2002).]