[vcf-midatlantic] What does Al Kossow have against VCF?

[Christian Liendo]

Please allow me to respectfully disagree, since I first posed the
question. I need to explain more.

We all know who Al Kossow is. He is a pillar of the community, he is
held in high regard. I hold him in high regard and so his opinion
holds weight.

When a person who is important in the community makes such a
statement, you have to ask why. Which is what I did.

Is it a critique of the organization?
Is it a critique of the members?
Is it a critique of our focus as hobbyists?

VCF is an educational non-prof that does good work for the community
as a whole, but when a member of the community who is that important
makes such a claim, then you try to figure out why.

My original question was "What does Al Kossow have against VCF?"

I then stated to Mike Loewen:

"I agree that Al Kossow has contributed immensely to the community and
continues to do so. I respect what he does. Given his contributions
and position in the community it was one of the reasons I asked the
question in the first place. I just didn't know what warrented that
response about VCF."

Neither of these were negative against Al Kossow.

I repeat, His opinion carries weight which affects how VCF is viewed.
If it was anyone else, I wouldn't have asked.

If Bill Herd or Amiga Bill or Jason Scott said anything like that, I
would want to know why as well.

I didn't go out to disparage Al Kossow, but to ask if there was a
known issue as to why he would say something like that.

If it's a valid critique then it's something that needs to be addressed.

My mistake was not writing all of this in the original question as I
considered this less formal.


On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic
<vcf-midatlantic at lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
>
> I think this discussion as titled, is inappropriate on principles.
>
> First, it's a public discussion about an individual, their actions and
> their supposed motivations. What special knowledge or authority, do
> particular persons have or possess, regarding some one person other than
> themselves? I call this "gossip".
>
> Second, this is a discussion group sponsored by a non-profit educational
> corporation, for public purpose. I doubt discussions of this class suit
> those purposes.
>
> Any plausible rules of moderation would not permit persons to post
> negative commentary about an individual. If the owners of this
> discussion group fail to moderate, it falls to the members to
> self-moderate. And so I post accordingly.
>
> Discussions about the operation of a mail list, are usually
> counter-productive; I choose this lesser evil.
>
> Third, if there's a plausible discussion about something more
> appropriate, such as say changes in tastes in the vintage computing
> community (general or particular) - then change the subject line to
> reflect that discussion, and continue that discussion.
>
> Put another way: If no one moderates or complains about gossip and
> personal arguments, and those posts continue, then that becomes the
> standard. It becomes normalized. Makes it easier to do the next time,
> and the next. This is the core argument for moderation.
>
> Regards, Herb Johnson
>
> --
> Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA
> http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
> preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing
> email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com
> or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net