Re: IIUG Board Nominations - "Where's the Board?"

It's important that this be elevated appropriately. OTC is on target with his assessment of the job. Mark did not raise this as a personal issue either on his own or my behalf. As a matter of fact, Mark was probably very surprised to see that I had tossed my hat into the ring at all. While I have a genuine desire to serve the Informix community, I submitted my nomination fully expecting it to be rejected. I have been, and will continue to be, outspoken about how the IIUG is run. And that is not acceptable to the current powers that be. I'm sure that's why Mark raised the issue. Manipulating the nomination process to suit the sitting board's own ends is reprehensible (grab that dictionary again!). It highlights that the board is not focused on serving the Informix community at large. For that reason, this issue needs to be raised and the community needs to respond to it appropriately. I believe that the best way to respond is via the democratic process. To wit, unseat the existing board in the upcoming election. And I express my sincerest apologies to the members of the board who I know are trying to do a good job in spite of a bad situation. You've seen everything I was sent officially from Sam. What I was told by a board member (let the witch hunt begin!) was that I was deemed unfit for the board because I have divulged confidential board information. That would be a reference to the board's failure to make the IDS v10 download available. That was not board confidential information. It was information that as IDS v10 product manager I had full knowledge of and felt no obligation to withhold from the community. On Nov 22, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > Having run a number of user groups in the past, and having > experienced the > enormous lack of input and gratitude from users, I can't really > even think > why you or Christine feel anything but grateful that it's not part > of your > life. > > -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio > > "... no bill is required as no value was provided." > -- Christine Normile > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Christine Normile wrote: > It's important that this be elevated appropriately. OTC is on target > with his assessment of the job. > > Mark did not raise this as a personal issue either on his own or my > behalf. As a matter of fact, Mark was probably very surprised to see > that I had tossed my hat into the ring at all. > > While I have a genuine desire to serve the Informix community, I > submitted my nomination fully expecting it to be rejected. I have been, > and will continue to be, outspoken about how the IIUG is run. And that > is not acceptable to the current powers that be. > > I'm sure that's why Mark raised the issue. Manipulating the nomination > process to suit the sitting board's own ends is reprehensible (grab that > dictionary again!). It highlights that the board is not focused on > serving the Informix community at large. > > For that reason, this issue needs to be raised and the community needs > to respond to it appropriately. I believe that the best way to respond > is via the democratic process. To wit, unseat the existing board in the > upcoming election. And I express my sincerest apologies to the members > of the board who I know are trying to do a good job in spite of a bad > situation. > > You've seen everything I was sent officially from Sam. > > What I was told by a board member (let the witch hunt begin!) was that I > was deemed unfit for the board because I have divulged confidential > board information. That would be a reference to the board's failure to > make the IDS v10 download available. That was not board confidential > information. It was information that as IDS v10 product manager I had > full knowledge of and felt no obligation to withhold from the community. > > Christine, I don't expect you to respond to my statements, but think about what I'm saying here. The IIUG _looks_ like it's supposed to be for users, but there is nothing about the IIUG that says it can't run the group the way the want to, and that may mean that the "implied" user advocacy component that you and others are expecting from them may not be there. You might _think_ the IIUG is all for and about users, but it ain't necessarily so, and since the IIUG BoD make up the rules, you need to remind yourself that this group may not if ever have end-user advocacy as a goal or mission that you or others desire. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, you might think about starting your own "IIUG" group, with end-user advocacy as a stated goal, as part of your charter. If anything the IIUG is more of a marketing mouthpiece for IBM, which is consistent because IBM funds the IIUG, and a simple follow-the-money path helps you to see why end-user advocacy may not be the intent or goal for the IIUG. It would be somewhat confusing if the IIUG were lobbying on behalf of end-users when it's IBM who's giving the IIUG money. This is not rocket science. As far as your track record with NDAs and such, that would be a problem for any marketing department if you violated what was to be held private. You might even see that as a problem for the future even if you were accepted on to the BoD, since anyone would have pause to trust you. But if you start your own group, you would certainly be an outsider, and someone with honest intentions to supporting end-users. That might be more of an attainable goal rather than worrying about how the IIUG manages their election, which for the most part appears unfair, but then again, life certainly is unfair. Start your own group, and do it the way you want! > > > On Nov 22, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> >> Having run a number of user groups in the past, and having experienced >> the >> enormous lack of input and gratitude from users, I can't really even >> think >> why you or Christine feel anything but grateful that it's not part of >> your >> life. >> Amen to that. I knows exactly how you feel. :-) >> --Bye now, >> Obnoxio >> >> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." >> -- Christine Normile >>

DE - I did not violate any NDA. This isn't complex. And if the IIUG board had a valid point, they should have addressed it rather than come up with a response that it was due to a large number of nominees. On Nov 22, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Double Echo wrote: > Christine Normile wrote: >> It's important that this be elevated appropriately. OTC is on target >> with his assessment of the job. >> >> Mark did not raise this as a personal issue either on his own or my >> behalf. As a matter of fact, Mark was probably very surprised to see >> that I had tossed my hat into the ring at all. >> >> While I have a genuine desire to serve the Informix community, I >> submitted my nomination fully expecting it to be rejected. I have >> been, >> and will continue to be, outspoken about how the IIUG is run. And >> that >> is not acceptable to the current powers that be. >> >> I'm sure that's why Mark raised the issue. Manipulating the >> nomination >> process to suit the sitting board's own ends is reprehensible >> (grab that >> dictionary again!). It highlights that the board is not focused on >> serving the Informix community at large. >> >> For that reason, this issue needs to be raised and the community >> needs >> to respond to it appropriately. I believe that the best way to >> respond >> is via the democratic process. To wit, unseat the existing board >> in the >> upcoming election. And I express my sincerest apologies to the >> members >> of the board who I know are trying to do a good job in spite of a bad >> situation. >> >> You've seen everything I was sent officially from Sam. >> >> What I was told by a board member (let the witch hunt begin!) was >> that I >> was deemed unfit for the board because I have divulged confidential >> board information. That would be a reference to the board's >> failure to >> make the IDS v10 download available. That was not board confidential >> information. It was information that as IDS v10 product manager I >> had >> full knowledge of and felt no obligation to withhold from the >> community. >> >> > > Christine, > > I don't expect you to respond to my statements, but think about > what I'm > saying here. The IIUG _looks_ like it's supposed to be for users, > but there > is nothing about the IIUG that says it can't run the group the way > the want > to, and that may mean that the "implied" user advocacy component > that you > and others are expecting from them may not be there. You might > _think_ the IIUG is > all for and about users, but it ain't necessarily so, and since the > IIUG BoD make > up the rules, you need to remind yourself that this group may not > if ever > have end-user advocacy as a goal or mission that you or others > desire. This is > not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, you might think about > starting your own > "IIUG" group, with end-user advocacy as a stated goal, as part of > your charter. > > If anything the IIUG is more of a marketing mouthpiece for IBM, > which is consistent > because IBM funds the IIUG, and a simple follow-the-money path > helps you to see why > end-user advocacy may not be the intent or goal for the IIUG. It > would be somewhat > confusing if the IIUG were lobbying on behalf of end-users when > it's IBM who's giving > the IIUG money. This is not rocket science. > > As far as your track record with NDAs and such, that would be a > problem for any > marketing department if you violated what was to be held private. > You might even > see that as a problem for the future even if you were accepted on > to the BoD, since > anyone would have pause to trust you. But if you start your own > group, you would > certainly be an outsider, and someone with honest intentions to > supporting end-users. > That might be more of an attainable goal rather than worrying about > how the IIUG > manages their election, which for the most part appears unfair, but > then again, life > certainly is unfair. Start your own group, and do it the way you > want! > > >> >> >> On Nov 22, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >>> >>> Having run a number of user groups in the past, and having >>> experienced >>> the >>> enormous lack of input and gratitude from users, I can't really even >>> think >>> why you or Christine feel anything but grateful that it's not >>> part of >>> your >>> life. >>> > > Amen to that. I knows exactly how you feel. > > :-) > >>> --Bye now, >>> Obnoxio >>> >>> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." >>> -- Christine Normile >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list