On 6/18/07, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 6/18/07 4:10 PM, Ray Saintonge at
saintonge(a)telus.net wrote:
>> I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is
>> the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the
>> microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that
>> entails.
>>
> It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed
> circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial
> employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
It has happened, famously, with some workers' cooperatives, and they
inevitably fail for obvious reasons. Yet we persist in doing it here
-- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are,
or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse
that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would
quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's
in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
What problems are caused by too many admins? The way I see it, having
more admins is a very good way to prevent abuse on their part, since
they are accountable to more people "on their level". ~~~~
--
Absolute Power
C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y