Talk:Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

message: The claim of being simpler than the California system needs to backed up with some kind of citation, discussion, or explanation or I will delete it. Jazzbox (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

message: :::Some background about the PNSN page discussion:  Jazzbox, an employee we fired way back in 2007, is still trying to insult us, even though he does not understand the issues he is raising.  Yes, one light earthquake out of all our years of operation did not send out a notification, which had no effect.  The complaint about the early warning system is entirely specious - that was the expected performance, nothing performed less well than designed.  It is why we (and every other similar system in the world) are installing faster equipment, and the major point of our current network upgrade.  He is grinding his axe, not trying to inform the public.  By the way, nearly everyone agrees instrumenting the Seahawks games has been a great success in educating the public as well as exercising our portable instruments and developing some new software - only Jazzbox disagrees. John (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One more point.  Jazzbox cites an article that describes, quoting Steve Malone, that the system had a problem, yet keeps editing out mention, also by Steve, that the network performed flawlessly for the prior ten years.  Either Steve's words are authoritative or they are not, but Jazzbox wants to only quote the negative part of his words and insists on editing out the positive.John (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Acme Carpets" claims that their carpets are flawless, that's fine.  But if they create a wikipage with a quote from the president saying the carpets are flawless as a fact, does that fly?  You could say the president of Acme Carpets was authoritative, fine, but could say he was biased?  How is that scenario different markedly from the one presented?  As far as the issue of the early warnings system being specious, as you put it... the claim is only limited to the fact that the early warning is slow, that is all since "failure" has been removed and I have no problem with that.  The Associated Press says the early warning is slow, basically, because of layout of sensors, in other words, essentially the architecture.  This is just a basic fact.  It is important for the public to know that it can be slow; that is why they had the article and it appeared widespread in the news.  As far as having an axe to grind, let me say that I don't like to see the PNSN wasting taxpayers money on Seahawks games, and will speak out about it.  I am not empowered to stop you.  But I will complain because I don't like it. For one thing the Seahawks are a private company owned by Paul Allen, but you could use neighboring Husky Stadium.  If I log on after last year's Cal game, after an earthquake, and the system doesn't work, a seismogram failure, how is that grinding an axe?  I am complaining that the system doesn't work.  The system did fail in 2009, and that is all it says in the article.  If none of these things happened I would stay silent.  that is not grinding an axe; that is being vocal about issues that affect everybody.  These are not insults.  Jazzbox (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the condescending comment of "an employee we fired way back in 2007": since you elected to go there, let me add some facts which are part of the issue in question and are available as public record in the relevant UW office, or can be provided from documents.  The following are only facts, except the last sentence, questions.  The employee in question was required to complete a six month probationary period, after which union rules were to protect against summary, sudden firings, and the union contract stipulated various steps to be taken prior to employee dismissals.  The employee completed the six month period in absolute months, that is six months were completed -- in fact his employment length extended BEYOND the six months.  There was some contention regarding vacation days and holidays figuring into the total probationary period computation that the six month probationary period could be extended by.  The union contract was ambiguous and could be interpreted to favor either party -- that is either the UW or the employee.  The UW fired the employee claiming a particular interpretation of the clauses in the union contract which could have been interpreted so as to favor the employer's justification of a summary dismissal.  That was basically the end of it since there was no lawsuit and no settlement.  The reader can make up his/her mind regarding the integrity of such an employer's (correction from employee) decision making, and also if it could be excused if the former employee were critical from time to time in the press of the PNSN, quoting only from outside, news media sources. Jazzbox (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair summary, although the 6-month interpretation was unambiguous.  The issue you contested was whether the rules were too difficult for you to be expected to interpret correctly. John (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you were told, and why you feel the need to insult my intelligence since the consensus at the time was indeed that the contract was ambiguous with respect to vacation days and holidays, but if you want I can show you the union contract and the dates, as well as the supporting materials, and the clauses regarding computing the probationary period extension.  But I would rather actually drop the issue.  I am only going to insist that if there is a system failure it will appear on wikipedia as such. I will shut up Vidale if you just own up to system failures, and stop goofing off at Seahawk games!  I want to see these public funds used responsibly.  Jazzbox (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my 3rd opinion, I'm not going to referee a dispute. My advice to all is to try to work things out the best you can. Forget about motives. Forget about who the other person is or might be. This is not a forum or a chat room. Focus on the article and on building consensus. What do you specifically want changed in the article, how do you justify the change, etc. We've all been there, it's a little uncomfortable, just do your best to work through it. I need to move on. Sorry. The teahouse is available for more questions on policies and guidelines etc. Dig Deeper (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dig-Deeper, understood.  I actually propose we drop the animosity which I find tiresome anyway, and do as is stated and focus on the article.  As long as the sentences in contention do not sound like "The PNSN is great" arguments I am fine.  Jazzbox (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dig Deeper, thanks for your time.  I don't intend to have a drawn out discussion about this page, and doubt I will have further comments.  Sorry my remark above sounded pejorative, my impression is that it is strictly accurate - the probation rule was unambiguous but not simple.  John (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I will scan up the little yellow union contract booklet in the coming days or weeks, when I get around to it.  I still have that along with the rest of the emails.    It is trivial to show more than one common sense interpretation of the extension rules regarding weekends, holidays, and vacation days.    Jazzbox (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ancient history, and I doubt the little booklet is the legally binding document (and I'm not a lawyer who understands legalese anyway).John (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the union contract isn't binding?  Attention future job seekers.Jazzbox (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved additional discussion from my talk page to here 

message: Since the early warning feature was implemented with inadequate sensors for full coverage, as exemplified by the failure in recent years, it appears to me that Vidale/Bodin designed a system knowing in advance that it essentially would not work without future funding. This situation could be argued in different ways, but that is the practical result. Now that Trump is in office funding seems in jeopardy. It seems to me that there should be some discussion in the article as to why they built a system, and thus already invested heavily, on the speculation only that future funding would be available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzbox (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough sensors for early notification feature