italicization for latin /et al/ in technical writing

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

[...]

> I have a different attitude on that score.  *I* am not the one who
> wants a newsletter published, just the poor soul who offered to
> do the busywork.  So, if *you* want a newsletter published,
> it behooves you to get your commitments met.  Let someone else
> "hound" the folks who are falling short.
[...]
> "You were looking for someone tech-savvy to handle the production aspects
> of assembling the publication.  I *offered* to do so -- with the understanding
> AND ASSURANCE that I would just be assembling content provided by others.
> I can predict how much of my time that will require with a high degree of
> accuracy so I am willing to take on THAT task."

I am not doing it *for* them, I am doing it as *one of* the them, so
hounding potential cotributors is part of my job.  Most of our
contributors are irregular, only writing when they have saomething to
say.

[...]
.
> A woman eagerly took on the task.  Donations accumulated.
> And, she lost interest.  Or, realized it was more work ...

We have been bitten a couple of times.  Once someone volunteered to
catalogue a lot of stuff.  After months of hearing nothing we tried to
contact her and found she wasn't answering e-mails or the telephone.

Another one took over the post of membership secretary, converted the
records to a database system that she was incapable of handling and
incapable of exporting to someone who could sort it out.  It took us a
year to find out who some of our more recent members were.


> I believe a non-profit legally needs a treasurer and a secretary,
> here.  But, there are no needs for president, volunteer
> coordinator, fundraising chair, event coordinator, etc.
> So, the jobs that really contribute to the success of the
> organization are left vacant.

I think the UK requirements are for a Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer.
There is an awkward situation regarding Trustees, as the status of these
may depend on what is in the individual constitutions.
>
> And, at each meeting, everyone wonders who'll take them on
> ("But *I* am too busy...") and fears that the organization
> will fold as a result ("How will I spend my time when these
> activities and opportunities no longer exist?")

Our Committee has been in existance for many years and the membera all
know each other well and have a lot of background knowledge.  This is
daunting for a newcomer who helpfuly suggests something, only to meet a
chorus of voices saying "We tried that in 1989 and it didn't work".

-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 2/12/2023 7:24 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> I have a different attitude on that score.  *I* am not the one who
>> wants a newsletter published, just the poor soul who offered to
>> do the busywork.  So, if *you* want a newsletter published,
>> it behooves you to get your commitments met.  Let someone else
>> "hound" the folks who are falling short.
> [...]
>> "You were looking for someone tech-savvy to handle the production aspects
>> of assembling the publication.  I *offered* to do so -- with the understanding
>> AND ASSURANCE that I would just be assembling content provided by others.
>> I can predict how much of my time that will require with a high degree of
>> accuracy so I am willing to take on THAT task."
> 
> I am not doing it *for* them, I am doing it as *one of* the them, so
> hounding potential cotributors is part of my job.  Most of our
> contributors are irregular, only writing when they have saomething to
> say.

Different motivation.  I'm not a "joiner"; I lend my time/skills to
groups/businesses (the latter, for pay) but don't get invested in
their success/failure.

>> A woman eagerly took on the task.  Donations accumulated.
>> And, she lost interest.  Or, realized it was more work ...
> 
> We have been bitten a couple of times.  Once someone volunteered to
> catalogue a lot of stuff.  After months of hearing nothing we tried to
> contact her and found she wasn't answering e-mails or the telephone.
> 
> Another one took over the post of membership secretary, converted the
> records to a database system that she was incapable of handling and
> incapable of exporting to someone who could sort it out.  It took us a
> year to find out who some of our more recent members were.

Yes.  Everything always *looks* easy -- esp to the folks criticizing
an effort! -- until you actually HAVE to make it work.

This is why I try hard to understand and define the conditions of my
"service" -- do I *really* want to take on this responsibility?
And, why it is relatively easy (conscience-wise) for me to withdraw that
if I've been "misled" (trying to nicely say "lied to").

>> I believe a non-profit legally needs a treasurer and a secretary,
>> here.  But, there are no needs for president, volunteer
>> coordinator, fundraising chair, event coordinator, etc.
>> So, the jobs that really contribute to the success of the
>> organization are left vacant.
> 
> I think the UK requirements are for a Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer.
> There is an awkward situation regarding Trustees, as the status of these
> may depend on what is in the individual constitutions.

Chairman (president, executive director, etc.) is not required.
Treasurer is because there is money involved and *someone*
has to sign the filings with the goobermint.  Likewise, someone
has to record notes regarding the organization's decisions,
policies, actions, etc.

But, no one has to be responsible for its operation!

[I know of half a dozen groups operating without "someone at
the top".  And, no one *wants* that position because it often
means a lot of *work*!]

>> And, at each meeting, everyone wonders who'll take them on
>> ("But *I* am too busy...") and fears that the organization
>> will fold as a result ("How will I spend my time when these
>> activities and opportunities no longer exist?")
> 
> Our Committee has been in existance for many years and the membera all
> know each other well and have a lot of background knowledge.  This is
> daunting for a newcomer who helpfuly suggests something, only to meet a
> chorus of voices saying "We tried that in 1989 and it didn't work".

Yes, some of the nonprofits I've been affiliated with for almost
30 years.  Often, *I* am the organization's "historical record";
volunteers come and go (die!), directors move on to other groups,
etc.

But, there's a fine line between discouraging someone from trying
something that *didn't* work and something that *won't* work.
Just because a previous attempt failed doesn't mean the objective
can't be met.  The previous attempt may have been ill-conceived.
Or, the folks involved, inept.  (A big problem with volunteer
based groups is you don't get to select members based on abilities,
like an employer recruiting QUALIFIED employees!)

OTOH, letting someone spin their wheels in an effort that likely
won't bear fruit is almost a surefire way to lose that person's
labor offering.

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

[...]
>... I'm not a "joiner"; I lend my time/skills to
> groups/businesses (the latter, for pay) but don't get invested in
> their success/failure.

I was already a member;  when the previous Editor wanted to retire, I
stepped into the post.


> > Another one took over the post of membership secretary, converted the
> > records to a database system that she was incapable of handling and
> > incapable of exporting to someone who could sort it out.  It took us a
> > year to find out who some of our more recent members were.
> 
> Yes.  Everything always *looks* easy -- esp to the folks criticizing
> an effort! -- until you actually HAVE to make it work.

She thought she knew it all and bluffed her way past the chairman with a
load of technical claptrap that she had heard her boyfriend using.  He
probably did know what he was doing, but she was totally out of her
depth and tried to find a way of blaming us for her failure.

We have also had 'experts' try to persuade the Chairman to let them take
over the website - how much better they could make it for only a
moderate fee!  When I read them the rules: no Javascript, no cookies,
they usually backed down.  They all turned out to be
'painting-by-numbers' merchants who just filled in templates.

I have tried unsuccessfully to take newcomers under my wing and train
them up, but they all want spectacular results instantly for no effort
and aren't willing to invest time learning the HTML and PHP they need to
run the website.  Similarly we have had workparty members and even a
manager who thought they just needed to buy expensive machinery to do
the job - some hadn't even learned to tie a knot properly, had no idea
of basic engineering and hydraulic principles and were a disaster at
manpower management.

[...] 
> But, there's a fine line between discouraging someone from trying
> something that *didn't* work and something that *won't* work.

If the reasons it didn't work are still in place, it won't work again -
but if things have changed, it might.  We were trying to be helpful but
the collected long memories of the Committee were a bit daunting for a
newcomer still feeling their way.

-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 2/12/2023 1:20 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> ... I'm not a "joiner"; I lend my time/skills to
>> groups/businesses (the latter, for pay) but don't get invested in
>> their success/failure.
> 
> I was already a member;  when the previous Editor wanted to retire, I
> stepped into the post.

Yes, but you'd already *joined*  :>  That's the step that I skip.

>>> Another one took over the post of membership secretary, converted the
>>> records to a database system that she was incapable of handling and
>>> incapable of exporting to someone who could sort it out.  It took us a
>>> year to find out who some of our more recent members were.
>>
>> Yes.  Everything always *looks* easy -- esp to the folks criticizing
>> an effort! -- until you actually HAVE to make it work.
> 
> She thought she knew it all and bluffed her way past the chairman with a
> load of technical claptrap that she had heard her boyfriend using.  He
> probably did know what he was doing, but she was totally out of her
> depth and tried to find a way of blaming us for her failure.

Volunteer organizations are loath to refuse any offers of help.
And, often don't have anyone capable (and willing AND possessing the
necessary diplomatic skills!) of evaluating what the "applicant"
can offer (reliably).

Some local groups avoid this problem by defining roles and its a
"take it or leave it" opportunity for a volunteer.  E.g., the
local food bank will gladly take your labor -- to pack boxes/bags
with donated groceries.  THEY will tell you how to do it and
WHEN you will report for your service.  If this doesn't suit
you, feel free to offer your services elsewhere.  (they never have
a shortage of volunteers so can adopt this approach).

The hospitals are similar in their treatment of volunteers.
But, they have a PAID staff member to coordinate those efforts
(it's a huge resource, worthy of their spending money to
shepherd it)

> We have also had 'experts' try to persuade the Chairman to let them take
> over the website - how much better they could make it for only a
> moderate fee!  When I read them the rules: no Javascript, no cookies,
> they usually backed down.  They all turned out to be
> 'painting-by-numbers' merchants who just filled in templates.

Local HoA asked if I'd set up a website for them.  "Sorry, I don't
do HTML"  :>

I try to offer skills that are harder to come by and hope others
will step up for the more commonplace efforts.

E.g., a group that recycles equipment has lots of "unskilled"
volunteers who will disassemble "scrap" items.  Silly of me
to spend my time doing that sort of thing.  OTOH, deciding which
items should be refurbished and which scrapped is a more
refined skillset.  So, I'll "triage" donations and let others
concentrate on tearing down or rebuilding, as appropriate.

Usually, you need a fair bit of experience with a group to be
able to understand their process, needs, and shortages before
you can sort out the best place to "spend" your efforts.

> I have tried unsuccessfully to take newcomers under my wing and train
> them up, but they all want spectacular results instantly for no effort
> and aren't willing to invest time learning the HTML and PHP they need to
> run the website.  Similarly we have had workparty members and even a
> manager who thought they just needed to buy expensive machinery to do
> the job - some hadn't even learned to tie a knot properly, had no idea
> of basic engineering and hydraulic principles and were a disaster at
> manpower management.
> 
>> But, there's a fine line between discouraging someone from trying
>> something that *didn't* work and something that *won't* work.
> 
> If the reasons it didn't work are still in place, it won't work again -
> but if things have changed, it might.  We were trying to be helpful but
> the collected long memories of the Committee were a bit daunting for a
> newcomer still feeling their way.

Often, the "reasons it didn't work" have to do with "personnel on hand",
at that point in the organization's history.  I've had people dig in
their heels and actively work to thwart changes.  "Fine, we'll wait until
you're coerced out of the group and THEN we'll implement those changes."

Sadly, this is also often the case in businesses.  "Long timers" who
rely on "that's the way we've ALWAYS done it" as an excuse to
avoid change.  Move them out of the way and THEN implement the
changes -- to their chagrin.

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

[...]
> 
> Often, the "reasons it didn't work" have to do with "personnel on hand",
> at that point in the organization's history.  I've had people dig in
> their heels and actively work to thwart changes.  "Fine, we'll wait until
> you're coerced out of the group and THEN we'll implement those changes."

In our case it was often because the new volunteers didn't realise that
a landowner was dead against us (or had to be handled with kid gloves) -
or weren't aware of hidden historical structures that had to be
preserved.   On a couple of occasions it was because they were so
ignorant of the basics that they thought water would oblige them by
running uphill (yes, seriously ! ).

We had one volunteer dig a hole in the canal bed to let a stream come up
through from a culvert below.  He was the landowner and we could not
persuade him it wouldn't work; we just had to dam the canal further back
so we didn't lose all the water and then let him go ahead and do it.
That stretch of canal is still dry - but he insists that it would now be
in water if only we hadn't dammed it.

Some things can be altered over time, but some can't.


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk