No http://august.penguin.org.il/AUG2007/

[Shachar Shemesh]

Ori Idan wrote:
> I think Shlomi has a point in what he says.
I think Shlomi has no point in HOW he says it, and I think this is the 
fourth or fifth time this is happened THIS MONTH.
> We used to have a structure of the website that shows other AP's in 
> it, including pictures from them.
> We now have everything redone.
> Why change everything when we can keep the old way?
Because, for the second time, the old way excluded anyone but Shlomi 
from changing the site. I wanted to add a sponsor, remove a sponsor, 
change the schedule - only Shlomi could do it. Today, I do it myself.
> I know the old way is harder to maintain but Shlomi is willing to do 
> the job so why not?
Because he doesn't, and can never, do as good a job of it as a bunch of 
people doing it. The old site was plain, unpleasing to the eye. Anyone 
but Shlomi trying to change anything got a list of requirements that 
have nothing to do with either web development in 2008 nor with how to 
actually change the site. If I'm having a bunch of people trying to 
help, and then getting back to me with "I don't know what Shlomi is 
talking about nor how he expects me to do anything", then we have a 
problem. So I tell them "just do something entirely new, and we'll see 
how it goes".
> I did not even know the website was updated until about 2 days ago 
> where I saw the actual plan with the two tracks.
> So we are back to the 2 track systems, let's hope it works now (it was 
> not so good last time we tried it).
Despite an email to that matter sent to the august planning list on July 
17, ten days ago? I will hardly take responsibility over you not reading 
the mailing list's emails.
>
> For next AP, I think we should return to the old way of arranging 
> things using a mailing list (or a forum), a way that lets everyone 
> participate and not a blog which is a good way to update but not to 
> collaborate.
Shlomi tried that two years ago. EVERYTHING was transparent. The 
conference nearly collapsed a month and a half before the conference.

HOWEVER, so as I will not say that transparent is bad, I will happily 
recommend that you take the responsibility over the next conference.

I should point out that there is an apparent contradiction between the 
first and the second half of your email. In the first you advocate 
putting all of the control in the hands of one person, in the second you 
complain that the control is not distributed enough.

Shachar