OC-Python: US.CA.Orange County's Python Community Group Message Board › general :MKJA0S › MKG8G2: Matters need to be kept within their thread, and leadership/admin &a
MKG8J4: Recently this thread entitled "MKC647: Yesterday meeting admin side-note", a discussion intended to be between only the 2 group leaders, Dan & me, got its content read by at least 3 non-leaders (none of whom that I invited), including 2 of them mis-interpreted it and overreacted negatively to and even posted this their misunderstanding (and matters of this admin thread) on an event discussion-thread, causing it then to be instantly emailed to all attendees & commenters on that event, where it clearly didn't belong.
MKGBUN: (Do note I am not mentioning any of the members names in this thread, and even though they or somebody could figure out who they are, I don't want their names mentioned here.)
MKG98B: This has led me to now make to make forums in order to make a private leader's only forum in order to make this & other such threads private.
MKG9A4: I had originally thought of doing this before creating the thread, but, in the interest of communicating-via-post & especially totally transparent management, I decided not, choosing to because I (instead) gave a number of warnings in my post of the privacy and assumed members would be careful enough if they did run across it that they would realize it wasn't yet their business unless invited and take matters in context and not mis-interpret them and definitely would not circulate admin matters to other members and misrepresent them. But by this example, I see I was mistaken on all accounts.
MKG9QA: While the thread is now private, I will quite the warning signs I put on it which weren't headed:
MKG6KP: I titled this thread "admin side-note" -it's for admin.
MKG52E: And my very 1st 2 points of my thread, though not the clearest, also suggest the privacy I intended for it
MKC5ZP: Meetup discussion posts are generally missed by nearly all members unless it's called to a person's attention due to Meetup's poor notification of them. I am relying on this for this post,plus an obscure title, to acheive a simple way to here communicate-primarily-via-post http://1.jothere.com/... .--meaning this sort of thing was for only those invited. And if you read that link, it explains the necessity of posting (as in this example, where not 1 but leaders need to talk about other maters they may then need to share with certain other members) -email quickly turns out to be a mess.
MKG69A: And in my 1st post, I quote an email from Dan to me and my my reply is addressed, "MKC4DU: Good to hear from you, Dan!" --I'm not talking to anyone else.
MKG7HU: Moreover, I made indications of an expectation of privacy: "MKC82P: .. visible .. if one knows/told where to look)." (mentioned above) and ""MKC56X: this will _not_ likely be in my event listing post, but for you to know as Head and soon for (the member) to know: ...".
MKG6JB: As I would hope would be obvious by all this, I was only inviting Dan to this discussion at this time, wasn't intending to invite anyone else until Dan & I had discussed all this fully, which clearly by our responses, hasn't happened.
MKG7XD: *The only reason I wasn't then handling it via email (or other highly private means) but via post is for the rule I cite in my 1st sentence MKC5ZP , including (as that rule mentions) to be transparent in management, and for eventually inviting the member being discussed to so that that member could eventually see what discussed when invited (no talk about a member would be forever "behind his back" as many/most other organizations do).
MKGB01: Moreover, I conclude my talk about the member with indeed writing "so I'm trying figure out ways to show (the member) to write/talk constructively and show proper respect to all; nonetheless: ..MKC5TR: I am quite aware (member's many notable positives, going on a whole paragraph on that)".
MKG7U8: But still others, including, the member of interest here, has somehow gotten a hold of this (how? I didn't tell anyone but Dan), and seemingly dismissing all these signs that (1) this a discussion is intended to be just between Dan & me, and (2) that he wasn't really the main subject of discussion, just a side point, (3) he was talked about respectfully including citing many positives, and (4) what was apparently mis-said about him he could easily infer was an accident; but despite all this, (1) he severely overreacted negatively as clear from his mis-characterization of this there as "posting slanderous personal attacks against other members" and (2) possibly he (or someone/somehow else) has gotten another unrelated member involved who also says (and possibly echoing ) this mis-characterization on the event listing (so other members) as "Putting him on blast". Even one apparent-miunderstanding of what I had heard from the member tell me he was doing the member repeated in the event listing comment instantly emailed to most-all of our most active attendees.
MKGAM8: Like anyone having a conversation in a Starbucks or in a park, just because something is posted and/or is public does not mean it is intended for world consumption (rather by default it' often intended for just the people discussing it there, as was the case here), and I would expect people, especially smart people, especially smart involved members, to figure this out & respect it.
MKGBJ1: But from this example it quite appears they do quite the opposite, and even though this reference also mentions positives about the member and is balanced.
MKGBMM: -a bit ironic, but perhaps to be expected, when, come to think of it, by my quick memory, both them I recall have notably only posted negative about me.
MKGBQ6: **So one additional good rule of thumb then: until you've said real positive things about people, don't say negative things about them.
MKGBU8: Plus the title of this thread: "Matters need to be kept within their thread, and leadership/admin & other privacy respected, especially if the thread's labeled "admin" and/or has other suggestions of privacy"