[conspire] Fwd: Re: [sf-lug] Looking for a Senior MySQL administrator in San Francisco

[Rick Moen]

Just to further comment on my point:

Quoting jim stockford (jim at well.com):

> As the sf-lug group has no leader (and hopefully won't), action
> depends on some kind of consensus.

In the case of a posted job policy for the SF-LUG mailing list, as a
matter of _process_, action depends on possessing the listadmin password
for the Mailman administrative interface
(http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/admin/sf-lug).  To my knowledge, that
password is known only to Jim Stockford and lx_rudis, two of the
group's...  er... leaders.  ;->   (In addition, I _can_ get in using the
Mailman site-wide password, but have a hands-off policy.)

So, either of you could go into, say,
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/admin/sf-lug/general, find the field for
"An introductory description - a few paragraphs - about the list...",
and put something like "Yes, job postings are welcome, by the way." 
right under the existing text "General discussion mailing list for the
San Francisco group SF-LUG."

My point?  There's a tendency in volunteer groups to do nothing at all -- 
working on becoming an uncarved rock, but in a rather non-Zen fashion --
whenever any diversity of views emerges, on a discussed issue.  

But the problem is that what results _is_, despite intentions, a policy.
It's just that, in this case, it's the policy of being _un-informative_.
Which I personally think is, to quote an old boss of mine, "almost useful", 
i.e., not useful at all.

Doing nothing at all, not even posting a statement that "There are
diverse views on this question" in the absence of unanimity
("consensus"), is a bad habit, methinks.