Sent you an email with my phone number so you can text me when you know a time of day.
Wasn’t lucky today and please stop using every means at your disposal to privately contact me, especially when it involves pulling my personal email address from DMS data.
2 Likes
Mr. Busby,
As the Multicam SIG leader I have and will continue to have access to contact info for authorized users. Way too many are not on Talk, it’s an expensive piece of equipment, and I take my responsibility to support it and the users seriously. You and I apparently disagree on a key issue about being able to install/remove the cover nut for the spindle collet. I sent you my phone number to make it easier to coordinate to meet and discuss. I will drop the issue and continue to work per the original intent. Further pursuit will only happen if you initiate. In the meantime please avoid disparaging efforts to make improvements until you have more thoroughly investigated the rest of the story.
2 Likes
Or we can just have a nice open discussion about it… But it seems like we’re going about it your way!
1 Like
As I said … until you know the rest of the story where you would find this to have more involvement than you imagine.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
And I don’t choose to send my phone number in Talk. I was simply trying to make it easy for a single member to contact me in a more convenient manner. Have done several times when helping Multicam users. Never had a complaint before … just the opposite.
As for my privileges as SIG leader and as one with clearance to access Woodshop RFID info, better check your assumptions. Feel free to file a complaint. It is a member right.
1 Like
Then I guess “is it OK to email you my phone number” would be in order huh? You don’t get to harvest personal data without permission to accommodate your preferences. You were not helping him so it neither applies and again, you’d have permission. Not a relevant situation. End of story.
I’m aware you have access to my AD. You also had zero reason to use the access or publically post it since I was not subject to discipline, your chair didn’t ask you to, I didn’t ask you to, nor was it helping an issue I’d asked for assistance on. That action was for your personal agenda not DMS business in your role as a SIG leader. I hope @Team_Woodshop and especially your SIG is well aware that THIS is how you’re using that privilege and worse yet unapologetic about the violation of privacy.
Any time the SIG members, the Woodshop Chair or Vice Chair or the BoD wants me to stop doing what I am doing, I will comply. I can assure there have been many a night when I was still working on these issues for DMS at 2-3 in the morning that I have asked myself if I was sure I wanted to keep doing so.
File the complaint and force the issue if this is a burning issue for you.
paging @Team_Multicam, @Mrksls2, @shoottx, @mrjimmy, @scott_blevins, @Lampy, @Julie-Harris, @mblatz
Noooooooooooooooo! Woodshop cannot live without you!!!
Nope keep doing what you do. I’ll help when I can. But monitoring people who use the multi cAm is absolutely important
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I see no issue with Bert’s attempt at solving this problem. I wouldn’t want to post my private number publicly either. Maybe a PM on talk would be better next time? (Even though it’s essentially the same thing).
Do you see an issue with his behavior in the other thread? This is a real simple Yes or No. Is it acceptable in your eyes for SIG leader (or anyone with privileges) to access personal data and use it without permission and without it being part of official DMS business?
Because it kinda looks like your comittee seems to think it is.
Paging @Team_Moderators…
Can we please split the discussion of access of personal/AD info into a separate thread?
1 Like
Since @MathewBusby has raised an issue and @MrsMoose has rallied to his cause concerning my great offense, I’ll provide the background as I know it:
There is a technical issue why the manufacturer’s wrench design is a problem for some of the work done at DMS with the Multicam.
Members provided design help to eventually end up with a 1st draft prototype wrench that worked well until the soft steel began to deform. Tool steel was purchased to make a Version 2, but machining requirements and volunteer time availability slowed production far longer than anticipated. Most users recognized the prototype was worn too far and reverted to using the original design. I should have removed it from the cabinet, but failed to do so. Mr. Busby attempted to use the worn wrench and reported:
I responded as follows:
And then responded again after inspection. Of particular note is that I did not find the nuts to be as damaged as Mr. Busby implied, especially when used in a wrenhc that has been returned to the design diameter:
Bob Karnaugh opened a thread offering machining work for DMS needs as part of classwork. We started a conversation about using his help to expedite the new wrench. Mathew posted a note that implied he felt it was a too much effort based on the price of the manufacturer’s design wrench. Remember the whole point of this testing was to eliminate a problem directly related to that design.
I offered to meet Mr. Busby at DMS to discuss and explain the why of the new design.
Friday was indicated to be a possible day to meet. I tried unsuccessfully to PM my ohone number to Mr Busby in an effort to make it easier to coordinate schedules. I had sent Mr. Busby two prior emails as part of Multicam updates, so I had his email address. Unlike one other member, Mr. Busby never requested emails not be sent to the address associated with his Multicam authorization. So I sent an email with my phone number and confirmed such action of Talk:
Today he advised Friday wasn’t going to be possible for a meeting and posted this:
I am guilty of trying to explain what problem we are trying to solve and for looking hard for some way to make it easy to coordinate. I used the same address used for other Multicam topics and this was about a Multicam topic. My “wrong” isn’t clear nor in proportion to the backlash from either @MathewBusby or @MrsMoose IMO. I’m letting the members who care know the rest of the story and will comply with the desires of Woodshop and DMS leadership. Until told otherwise, I would do the same with other members with the exception of Mr. Busby per his request. I will still expect him to maintain full operational knowledge for the Multicam by whatever other means he chooses to utilize.
1 Like
As for @MrsMoose’s claim of foul … she said she was willing and able to starting making changes to the equipment in Woodshop to solve a problem she is convinced she completely understands. I do disagree with much of her position, but in particular I checked to make sure she had been trained to work with the equipment in WS. I feel you should have some training on the DMS equipment before you begin making changes to how it is accessed and used. I suggested (and sarcastically to be sure) that she better check with the WS Chair since she didn’t even have WS privileges beyond the Multicam. In her eyes this is a grave violation of her personal data.
Again, I would do it again in a similar situation if any member proposed making WS equipment changes without WS privileges. If I receive instruction to the contrary from WS or DMS leadership, I will comply.
1 Like
You left out the part when you sent me a 1000 word essay about honorariums, I told you I didn’t appreciate it, disabled PMs on talk so you (or anyone else) couldn’t PM me anymore, and so you circumvented that by going and finding my personal email address in a DMS database (that you happened to have accessed for DMS business prior) and then essentially PM’d me (via email). I didn’t ask for a meeting, but did give you the common courtesy of when you might be able to find me. You can also find me here, for some unknown reason I read Talk.
I’m not making a fuss really, obviously another member agrees with my perspective that you used DMS data (my email address) for not DMS business.
1 Like