[ilug-cal-website] Re: about us - and other changes

  • From: "A. Mani" <a_mani_sc_gs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ilug-cal-website@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:00:55 +0530

On Sunday 03 Sep 2006 22:51, Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Hi Mani,
> >> > That should be there. People who are maintaining the site should be
> >> > explicitly named. I am adding it. Wiki is the wrong place.
> >>
> >> Why? "About Us" defines ilug-cal and not the website. Explicitly naming
> >> us looks like cheap publicity, and will give the impression that the 5
> >> of us are controlling/doing everything, which should not be the case,
> >> this website should be for and by the members. I removed it, first let
> >> us settle and agree whether it should go or not.
> >
> > No it is not cheap publicity. It is about accountability.
> Accountability to who? Society, then the society knows well who are doing
> it, and if they are doing bad, they can be kicked out.
> To me it is more like a gimmick to draw attention. Let us discuss it in the
> meeting, and ask for other people's opinion.
Other people may need to know about the people behind the site. Even for legal 
issues. We are doing nothing wrong so we must mention it. Hideous sites will 
not mention the people behind it.
> >That is why it
> > should be there. Almost all websites (and even software) put up that part
> > in
> Not necessarily, I would say it is the opposite.
> > the 'about us' section (in the old site too it was that way). The option
> > is to have a separate sections. So please let it be part of it.
> >
> > We have huge sets of rules to say what is under whose control and we must
> > have more.
> There are no rules AFAIK, only guidelines. Rules need to be passed by
> members, one person can propose them, nothing more than that.
> >> > Typically 'Objectives' can be a separate static content section. ..but
> >> > we have merged it.
> thats ok in about us
or we can split that part up... it might look better especially if some art 
work is done.

> Suggestion: don't use strong words "criteria", "crazy", "requirements",
sorry about ''crazy', but other usages are mostly ok.  We need a good set of 
rules for work-flow. 

btw given the attendance at meetings will we ever be able to pass a thing.
I think the decision-making process needs to be modified. IRC should be 
better. ...........for deciding.......better ways ?

A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc



Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.yahoo.com 

Other related posts: