Re: Restructure APNIC Secretariat and retain David
>I agree with you that David has a good heart and would have tried to take
>care of his staff. That is a very different issue from perceptions and
>feelings of people, which is involved in people management. These are very
>complex issues and people management takes time, which David did not have
>much of. I don't think it was fair that APNIC membership expected David to
>do everyhting with just two other staff members and expect to him manage
>them properly, while travelling as much as he did.....it is humanly
>impossible.
>
>I for one did not expect that of him, especially since he has over and
>over again said at APNIC meetings that he was not a manager or business
>man..just an engineer, and a good one at that. He seems to have called for
>help many times before, but EC and membership continued to expect him to
>do it all. Therefore when I raised the issue, I was addressing it to the
>APNIC membership and EC, and the only reason I raised the issue was
>because I was asked by the affected individuals to help them. They felt
>the membership was insensitive to their point of view. Having been
>involved in the APNIC incorporation process and knowing there were
>weaknesses in the existing structure, I knew there was little other
>avenues these individuals had to bring awareness to their concerns. So the
>e-mail.
>
>The others who raised this issue also did not mean to implicate David but
>wanted to allude to the weakness of the existing structure. This is a very
>separate issue from David's competence, and I hope their voices do not get
>drowned.
>
>In any case, as I said these are two separate issues....and on the issue
>of David's area of competence, I completely agree with you that APNIC
>should look to have David's services made available to ensure continuity
>and smooth operations. He is after all a good engineer and a person
>committed to APNIC. I am sure with Pindar and your suggestions, the
>membership will think hard at this, and so will the EC.
>
>I also feel that the membership and EC should think hard at how to
>re-structure the Secretariat to avoid a future DG facing the same overload
>problems David had to deal with. There should be clearer divisions of
>labour and budgetting fo more staff. Secretariats should grow commensurate
>to workload and membership base.
>
>Regards,
>
>Laina RG
>
>--- On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 10:13:58 +0100 Daniel Karrenberg
><Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe dot net> wrote:
>
>Dear APNIC friends,
>
>
>
>To me it is absolutely unthinkable that David would not give *very*
>careful consideration to the concerns of the staff.
>
>David has discussed some decisions regarding APNIC with me. To me it is
>obvious that his sole concern when making those decisions was the
>success of APNIC.
>
>I recommend to the APNIC *membership* to consider the person David
>Conrad and what he has achieved on their behalf and offer him an
>adaequate position within the APNIC structure. Whether this be one of
>paid "technical director" or unpaid "special advisor" or some such I
>cannot say. What I can say is that in my opinion you should not loose
>David and that in order to keep him your explicit support needs to come
>from the membership at large and be voiced clearly and individually.
It wasn't that David (& APNIC) did not want to recruit more staff, he
couldn't get them in Tokyo. That was one of the key reason for the move
from Japan. The old EC gave David the mandate to recruit but perhaps it is
the culture of people (in Japan) preferring to work for large established
companies.
For those who are speculating (there are plenty), pls check with facts.
David has really really tried and it is not fair to implicate him.
For those who really knows him knows of his committment to APNIC in all ways.
tommi
_________________________________________________________________________
| To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+