I can say for certain that the board prefers to work on making DMS better and not solving interpersonal conflicts. We don’t have the right tools for the job and we always lose since we have to actually make the best determination we can at the time. It’s very imperfect.
Walter does visit us on the finance meetings fairly often. He asks good questions and is interested in what/how we are doing.
Well my snark has worked only 20%. So I guess they don’t respond well.
Walter is also concerned that we are operating as our bylaws say we should. His “threats” to sue DMS are his way of making the point that we can potentially be sued by anyone with a beef if we do not follow our own rules.
A candidate last year had the same concern, but he did not have the planets lining up in a row to generate sympathy points.
Sued by anyone with a beef or a minor’s insurance company when one finally gets hurt at the space.
So you are championing a BoD candidate who often threatens to sue DMS? I’m new here. You might need to fill me in.
He has threatened to use legal means to get the board to operate transparently. There have been many fights in the short year and a half I have been here over access to the member list, proxy voting, banning procedures and record keeping. I’m sure there are more I am not remembering at the top of my head.
IMHO, you may not realize this, but you are probably Walter’s best campaign manager.
Only in your mind, I think. Generally, one who manages a campaign is willing to vote for the candidate. Can’t say the man you describe is the one I’ve encountered.
====
Can others confirm that Walter has threatened to sue DMS? It might be a good idea to have more than one person on record with this kind of accusation.
are you saying we should take action against people who might be willing to sue the space?
So, here you are spamming Walter’s announcement thread, trashing him, and he’s not able to defend himself.
Zero class.
@LisaSelk – please move all messages in this thread other than Walter’s SOI to another thread for debate, and lock this thread.
And again without all the facts.
A pattern is starting to emerge here.
Whoa your ponies @tapper. I didn’t bring this thread to Walter’s statement. @LisaSelk did it. It was clean until her action earlier this afternoon. She moved a discussion here. I was along for the ride.
So you’re saying discussion of a person’s intent to run for the board shouldn’t be in the thread where they asked to announce it? How is this not the most appropriate place to discuss the candidates qualifications? I’m not supporting specific comments in this thread, but if you think the comments aren’t appropriate and don’t meet Talk guidelines, flag them as such. I just don’t agree that discussion of the candidate is off-topic and should be moved.
And also, there’s another thread for another candidate announcing their intent to run. Should we lock that one too and make people discuss the candidate’s qualifications in a separate thread? Trying to ensure some consistency here…
Cindy your original posts more appropriately fit in this thread as they are on the topic of his intent to run for a position on the board. Do you have an argument that that is not true?
Also Tapper responded to a comment you made in this thread directly.
Moderating this forum is necessary to ensure that discussions are happening in the appropriately defined place so they can be easily found and referenced later, if needed. If you have a suggestion on how we could do that better please let us know, but moderating is not going to go away and I don’t think many would agree that it’s heavy handed. If you have questions about categories or topics please ask so we can all keep this Talk place a friendly environment.
But I didn’t enjoy being accused of “spamming Walter’s announcement thread” when I didn’t post a thing here until it was moved by @LisaSelk. I couldn’t comment in the other place because it was locked.
I see your point, but we’re just trying our best to keep everything on task.
The best reminder I can give to everyone is before you click post, ask yourself: is my comment on topic?, does my comment improve this discussion?, would my comment be better suited for a private message with the person I’m responding to?
Granted this comment of mine would be better suited for a private response to you directly, but I want everyone to have these reminders so we can have healthier communication on Talk.
Now let’s get back on topic please if anyone still has discussion to share on this statement of intent.
This thread differs in one fundamental aspect: Walter currently cannot refute nor defend his past actions, nor provide reasons as to why we should vote for or against him.
Given that handicap, would you not agree that it is unfair to have his Statement of Intent thread turned into a mud-slinging fest by a career political blogger?
This Talk forum is a place for community discussion. He asked David to post this on a forum he knows to be very active. If he didn’t want discussion on the topic to happen, he should have stipulated that in his request or just not have asked for it to be publicized while he can’t participate in the discussion. Again if you feel the content of the posts don’t meet forum guidelines, flag them as inappropriate.
This may explain a lot:
Yeah I’ve been saying that for a while now.
Um, not to knock this church’s effort, but that barely breaks the personal Blogspot level of high-impact reporting.
The fear that Cindy might write something critical of DMS seems misplaced for a lot of reasons.
[[if that’s what this is about? it’s hard to tell at this point]]