Your "elected" LJ User Representative has graced us all with one post. A single post, explaining why she's not said anything, and how she won't be saying anything or allowing others to send her comments. The reason she gives?
Unless our discussions are eventually made public, I am bound by non-disclosure agreement to not reveal anything that has been discussed.
Really? Wow, a representative of the users not allowed to discuss the user board's issues with the users. That's hard to swallow, but I was prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Yet a commenter in another journal notes...
I'm really bothered that she says the non-disclosure agreement prevents her from saying anything yet from attempting to translate the Russian rep's page, he lists concerns and descriptions of the meeting (which he actually made) beyond that of just minutes, something she claims she cannot do. Which says to me either the Russian rep is violating the terms or she's lying. Since his LJ is open to comments and isn't playing the victim, I'll let you guess which LJAB member I believe.
Damn.
Furthermore, our "elected" representative chides us as such:
AB business will not be taking place here in my personal LiveJournal. No AB-related posts will be made here. Again, this is my personal journal, and not a sounding board for the community. I ask everyone to respect that.
Great. Fair enough. Where will we be able to talk to you directly, personally, as our representative? Not in a community where the other board members are, but to you, directly, without others who aren't supposed to necessarily have the users' best interests in mind.
At a minimum, a single post before the meeting saying, "Here are the things I intend to bring up, does anyone have anything else that should be discussed?" might be in order. No NDA violation there. Yet there's been one meeting already, and we didn't even know about it!
Color me unimpressed with the "go to hell" attitude given by our "elected" representative. And yes, I put "elected" in quotes because I still maintain that the election was a fraud. LJ agreed that there were sockpuppet votes that would be eliminated, yet they invalidated a sum total of zero votes. And the whole debacle of the "death threats" is still an open issue. LJ said police were notified. There's no report of that, and that's public information. LJ refuses to give any details, including a case number, and the SF Police (to whom LJ said they reported the issue) has no record of it.
Draw your own conclusions. Someone gets an all-expenses trip to Turkey (quite a nice prize).
Unless our discussions are eventually made public, I am bound by non-disclosure agreement to not reveal anything that has been discussed.
Really? Wow, a representative of the users not allowed to discuss the user board's issues with the users. That's hard to swallow, but I was prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Yet a commenter in another journal notes...
I'm really bothered that she says the non-disclosure agreement prevents her from saying anything yet from attempting to translate the Russian rep's page, he lists concerns and descriptions of the meeting (which he actually made) beyond that of just minutes, something she claims she cannot do. Which says to me either the Russian rep is violating the terms or she's lying. Since his LJ is open to comments and isn't playing the victim, I'll let you guess which LJAB member I believe.
Damn.
Furthermore, our "elected" representative chides us as such:
AB business will not be taking place here in my personal LiveJournal. No AB-related posts will be made here. Again, this is my personal journal, and not a sounding board for the community. I ask everyone to respect that.
Great. Fair enough. Where will we be able to talk to you directly, personally, as our representative? Not in a community where the other board members are, but to you, directly, without others who aren't supposed to necessarily have the users' best interests in mind.
At a minimum, a single post before the meeting saying, "Here are the things I intend to bring up, does anyone have anything else that should be discussed?" might be in order. No NDA violation there. Yet there's been one meeting already, and we didn't even know about it!
Color me unimpressed with the "go to hell" attitude given by our "elected" representative. And yes, I put "elected" in quotes because I still maintain that the election was a fraud. LJ agreed that there were sockpuppet votes that would be eliminated, yet they invalidated a sum total of zero votes. And the whole debacle of the "death threats" is still an open issue. LJ said police were notified. There's no report of that, and that's public information. LJ refuses to give any details, including a case number, and the SF Police (to whom LJ said they reported the issue) has no record of it.
Draw your own conclusions. Someone gets an all-expenses trip to Turkey (quite a nice prize).
Leave a comment









