Jonathan Langford wrote:
> I was thinking that perhaps there had been some prior notice that I had
> somehow missed that only paying AML members would be able to take part
> on the new discussion board. The comments by other AML-List members
> makes it clear that if this was mentioned, it was only in an oblique,
> not widely understood--or discussed--way.
There was prior arning a while ago, and it was in an oblique way. I
commented on it (as far as I can remember, I was the only one), and
nothing came back in response.
> Unfortunately, the way this was done casts the AML governing board
> itself in a poor light. Was there any thought of raising this point for
> discussion on AML-List itself--the group most affected by the change?
> Was there any thought to discussing the possible change with others who
> have contributed to AML-List in the past (i.e., Benson and myself), and
> might have some thoughts on the issue?
I've been silent on this topic ever since I started feeling this way,
but maybe this is a good time to say it. I've been very unimpressed with
how AML has been operated for two or three years now. I'm not sure
what's going on, and I still feel uncomfortable saying anything now
because I know it's entirely volunteer effort and often thankless effort
at that.
But that still doesn't change the fact that AML has decidedly waned in
its effectiveness and influence.
> I understand that these issues may have been debated extensively by the
> governing board. I would have no way of knowing that, not being on the
> board (or in a position to be, given my geography). Unfortunately, it is
> cold comfort to know (or believe) that issues have been discussed in a
> forum where I have no voice.
None of us know anything about it.
> Lest this be seen as carping from those who are not the ones actually
> doing the work, I would point out that at least three of those who have
> expressed these concerns--myself, Ben Parkinson, and D. Michael
> Martindale--have EACH dedicated hundreds of unpaid hours to AML.
My contribution in sheer hours paled in comparison to you two, but I'm
grateful that you incuded me in the list.
> While
> none of us is currently involved as a volunteer, we are part of the pool
> of past and (potentially) future AML workers. We are part of the
> organization's human capital. And at least two of us have intimate
> knowledge of the particular issue under discussion: that is, the running
> of AML-List.
I've made a couple of tentative steps to try and offer my help with the
website within the last month or so, and was ignored. I've gotten the
feeling my help is not wanted. I guess I can understand why. They
probably think I can't work and pay well with others.
> I do not want to criticize those who have stepped up to the plate to do
> the AML governance things that are needed right now. AML very nearly
> died as an organization, and I am grateful to those who prevented it
> from happening. But I have to say to the board members: y'all are
> alienating a lot of us who would like to think of ourselves as part of
> the AML community, both with regards to this decision itself and in the
> way it has been announced. That's not smart long-term thinking.
I'm not confmrtable doing it either. But the survival of AML as I once
remember it is more important to me. I don't know if I can say anything
to change how things are going though.
--
D. Michael Martindale
dmichael@???
WORLDSMITHS IS BACK!
And better than ever, with a fully automated website.
Come join the online LDS writers group that helped produce such notable
LDS novels as "Brother Brigham" and "Kindred Spirits."
WorLDSmiths Online LDS Writers Group
http://worldsmiths.org
