After thinking long and hard about how to respond, I am still at a loss so I will just wing it......
I think that it is important for SI to listen to the opinions of its members...really, I do. I think that the pro-A@P people should be heard and I think that the con-A@P people should be heard. But seriously, this is a decision that management should be making after weighing the evidence and holding that evidence up to whatever values SI runs their business by.
By evaluating the situation and making a decision based on what SI considers valuable, SI would prove that they took responsibility for their decisions. This would give SI's management some integrity. Of course, no matter what decision SI made, they would piss somebody off. Life is full of these little dilemmas. But by putting it up to a vote, SI absolves themselves of any responsibility in the decision. If A@P is not reinstated, SI can say "Sorry A@P, we put it to a vote and the great unwashed said NFW" or if he is reinstated, SI can say "Sorry anonymous SI member, we put it to a vote and the great unwashed said absolutely!!!"
Either way, SI ain't the bad guy. Nobody is....everybody is....
How many people that are reading this thread do you think would like to start a thread called "Ban Jorj X. McKie - Member Vote"? If somebody did this and the vote came out against me, would you uphold the vote? Why not?
My opinion is that you have made a bad situation worse. And now you are on a slippery slope of questionable credibility. If SI is willing to reinstate A@P based on a vote, that means that whatever violations that A@P was terminated for, were not that bad by SI management's standards and SI should make the decision themselves and take the lumps from the detractors.
So the crux of my dissertation is - I abstain, I will not vote either way (no need for a PM in that case, eh?)
If you are going to manage this place it is time to get your hands dirty and start managing.
JXM |
