I don't really think anything untoward has happened, and in fact I have a guess, too.

I am just curious as all get out, cause I am like that.

I still don't understand who I was being unfair to. (I'm sorry for being so thick.) The admins? I don't "not get along with" the admins, I don't think...? I think I appreciate their situation. I'm just unhappy with it.

And the subject of the discussion? I think I'm being scrupulously fair. I'd like to talk about that, in fact. But... can't, without being really damn cryptic and annoying and cringing about it.

I don't mean to be forcing an issue that I know nothing about, and I don't mean to suggest that I don't trust the judgement of those we call Stompy. 'Cause I do. But I hear people talking about things they "can't" talk about here, and frankly, I didn't think that was how we did things. It's making me very uncomfortable.

I still don't understand who I was being unfair to.

Okay, to be a little less cryptic.

You weren't being unfair to anyone. I was speaking of the how the harder duties get carried out. Which means sometimes, things are slow, because to be fair, you need to be careful. Which is still cryptic, but as I have a reasonable assumption that you are familiar with the situation to which you are cryptically referring, THAT is was I want kept in mind, and now I shut up until I can go home and check my email.

Steering very clear of any actual issues, but the Stompies are quite often in a difficult position -- if we still hold to the position that they have no moral authority over the board, only technical authority, like the caretaker in a school.

Nobody gets expelled by a caretaker, but the caretaker has the keys to everything, works different hours, is alert to safety issues and emergency situations, and has access to different areas, sees stuff that other members of staff don't see, as a result.

I see what you are saying now, PMM.

And OK I still I think I'm right but I'm not going to belabour a discussion we're Not Actually Having.

FWIW, one of the things I proposed -- but tabled for now, because we can't nail down the voting procedure without a steam drill and John Henry -- was a formal definition of what Stompies do and don't do.

I'm kind of upset that there is admin-discussion before there is all-Buffista discussion on this issue. I'm kind of upset that the admins, who aren't supposed to be any different from the rest of the Buffistas, are getting to kind of decide what actions they will take on something, without any other Buffistas necessarily knowing about it.

And as someone who's not in the know, I think it inappropriate to discuss political matters not accessible to the entire board on the board. (Tantamount to saying, "I have good gossip sources and you don't" -- it's divisive and it encourages speculation.) I agree that there's a lot of vaguery in what Stompies are supposed to do, but let's lay it all out or keep it all in, not hint hint and allusion. Rl, if you feel there's dirty laundry to air, and that you have the right to air it, then air it; but if you don't want to air it, don't talk about it.

I agree with Nutty.

Rl, if you feel there's dirty laundry to air, and that you have the right to air it, then air it; but if you don't want to air it, don't talk about it.

(I hadn't brought it up!)

(And I *don't* feel I have the right to air it. As I'm not an admin; and therefore not completely informed as to what they've been doing. But I *want* to bring it up-- I'm not being coy for coy's sake-- and that is my problem.)

we're Not Actually Having.

Except, of course, that some of us are.

And as someone who's not in the know, I think it inappropriate to discuss political matters not accessible to the entire board on the board.

This is really the source of my discomfort. I'll let it go.