A Few Points

[Guest guest]

I take to heart the comments that my approach seemed harsh Those

comments are valid. However, much has been misunderstood,

misinterpreted, or communicated badly on many fronts. So here is an

attempt at some context.

First the issue of doubting the veracity of the person who contacted

Ken. I never knew who that was as the first mention of the name was

in the post chastising me. When I said it was unsubstantiated, I was

not referring to the person's honesty, but to the fact that we never

heard anything again. The was no expectation personal information

from the conversation would be shared. What was expected was some

indication that Ken would be addressing the issue, with some estimate

of a time frame, or some other indication that gave a reason to hope

for a resolution. But the fact remains that there was, and still is

silence on that point.

The proposal to form a new group was never intended to replace or

diminish the current group. It was offered only as a way to resolve

a thorny problem. I am busy enough not to need the extra load of a

group for any kind of personal reason. It seemed to me that if the

new group was structured and operated like the old group, it would

immediately allow all members to fully participate in the

community. I never suggested it was a this or that decision, or any

decision at all. What difference does it make which group we are

members of if nothing has changed except for a name, and a different

set of moderators if the community is still intact and

thriving? This would in no way diminish the contribution Ken has

made. In reality is would reenforce the value of his accomplishment,

while relieving him of a burden he seems not to be able to carry for

whatever reason.

The 48 hour statement was not an ultimatum. It was a statement,

admittedly strong, that it was time something be done in the absence

of any other plan. Besides, how could it be an ultimatum when there

was absolutely no consequence to the old or new group, Nobody was

encouraged to quit the current group, or expected to do so. I am

simply offering a place to go to keep 911Console alive. A place to

go if anyone wanted to, not because of some kind of a contest or

battle of egos, but because it is needed given the current set of

circumstances.

I never intended to quit the current group, or expected anyone else

to. I fully expected the messages would be cross-posted. If the

original group gets fixed I would be thrilled. I would love to see

the new list's membership merged back into the original group, and

then disbanded. There is no need for two groups--only one that

works. But does anyone really think 911Console is on the verge of

being fixed?

When I said the new group would be a successor I was using a meaning

of the word that was not in the definition someone quoted. A

successor is also something that follows something else, especially

when the predecessor is vacated. The US Constitution is the

successor of the Articles of Confederation, and was certainly not a

coup, or royal power grab. It fixed an obvious problem. In this

case the vacancy is the absence of a group administrator, and the

problem is its crippling effect on the group. The reason or

legitimacy for the vacancy was never questioned. It is what it is.

I intend to proceed as described, Everyone is welcome to participate

if they want to. That is your choice. If not one person joins I

could not care less. I will still know I did right thing, and made

an honest attempt to help.

911Console is different from all the other groups in its size, range

of experience, and breadth of topics and information. The new group

is aimed at preserving that integrity and character. That much of

the current group is not broken.