I'd like to (very gently) stick up for Mike - not to justify or make excuses
for his approach but, perhaps, to put it in perspective.

But first, I have no complaint with James' management, I wouldn't want his
thankless task and none of the following should be seen as a criticism of
him (and that's NOT just to try to stop my getting thrown off the list
:-) ). I appreciate what he does! But this must necessarily question the
decision he made - hopefully the difference between criticise and question
is not so fine as to seem pedantic :-)

First. Mike acted stupidly and unnecessarily. What he said wasn't more than
marginally useful. He might perhaps have expected it to cause some ill
feeling, although it is possible that he didn't really appreciate this. But
it was extremely mild. If it had been ignored then it may have rested there.
And if anyone else had said what he said, but phrased in better English, it
probably have passed without a ripple.

    "Oh I say old chap, .... " :-)

In the 6 days that Mike was back on the list he made 20 posts.

7 of these were purely useful technical posts of assistance to other
people - the majority with good references or technical comment.

The majority of the rest were chit chat or technical banter

His response to a question by Lindy was by far (to me) the most unacceptable
one.
Lindy handles it utterly superbly.
Mike commented on this and congratulated him.

One post was Mike replying onlist (in error) to me abusing him off list for
abusing Lindy :-)

The exchange with Dave was a storm in a handbag.
Read what he said.
He didn't say anything abrasive.
He in advance attempted to say that it - was - no - big - deal but ...
His idiomatic expression probably sounds better in Ukranian (swinging
handbags in anger sound strange to me and no doubt to others). It MAY have
been thought that he was associating Dave with handbag swinging. if so, read
again. It was Mike who was the non-handbag-swinger.

His comment

    Kind of adding few lines to the rules:
    "Feel free to post your resumes under any tag"

was actually a positive one, adding to someone else's suggestion.
If I'd made it it would have been ignored at worst.

About there that thread seemed to have died down.

2 technical helping posts followed.

If things had stopped there we would probably all be home by now ... :-)

Then Ishaan's post arrived.
It was completely reasonable in what he said - but if YOU (whoever you are
that has read this far) had read it and been the target then you would
probably have been a bit peeved. It was direct and in your face. I can see
why Ishaan wrote it and I understand his depth of feeling.
But I can also see why Mike would want to defend himself somewhat.

Mike's response was heated but hardly rude as a response (even if not put as
I would put it).

We then get SIX more technical posts from Mike, and he is then removed from
the list.
He didn't write anything non-technical (on list anyway) after his response
to Ishaan.
For all I know he had some correspondence offlist with admin ?????????????

Whatever happened, I would have thought that some gentle assistance from
admin in adjusting to appropriate list behaviour would have been
appropriate. eg a public dressing down, dual keel hauling, reading of riot
act, pointing to FAQ and directing on pain of defenestration not to take
part in any directive posts. ie ONE chance.

One problem with Mike is that he does face up to being shot if required to
do so.
Arranging for him not to have the opportunity to do so or to be kept from
temptation by suitable well understood personal rules MAY work.

He is a useful resource. He is helpful at all levels. He's also human. I am
not suggesting that ongoing rude behaviour should be tolerated. Giving
someone ONE chance is probably approaching fair.

Changing things now would require a little pride swallowing by James but far
more by Mike - James could arrange for whatever size pride he wished Mike to
swallow :-). I'd be happy to put anything to Mike as I am out of the aggro
loop so far (I think). I'm happy to explain chapter and verse of what's
required (when somebody tells me what it is) and ensure that Mike
understands what's required.

Thoughts?




        Russell McMahon
.
> Dave, It is ABSOLUTLY NOT your fault.

I agree.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics