New Owner of Amiga.org to be on Amiga Roundtable.

[therail]

are you still in control then wayne? or am i still banned from using my "hey yo!" catchphrase!

[ffastback]

A fair question and concern.  Thank you.
If I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that Bill and I had completely talked them into the ART announcement thinking it would be the best way to do it.  Unfortunately, I think that the new owner(s) are much more private person(s) than that and really don't want to be the center of things or to be a "rock star" in the community.  

The problem is he or she agreed to the announcement and then bailed last minute.  The community did not ask for a show with this event as the highlight.  But once it was told it was getting it and told it should tune in, it should have gotten it.  Amiga history clearly tells us that hype with no producing what was hyped is bad news.

Since you are not sure if they are singular or plural owners, does this mean you've never spoken to any of them?

Bill does have a history of using buffers.  If his account at aw.net ever said anything off he'd say he did not write it but that an employee he had to scold/discipline for it did.  He said he ran the money on the Amizilla bounty, but when it was closed, he said he actually did not.  I hope that we don't end up in another situation where things are done and then the new site admin blames the new owner.  Someone just as faceless as the other above examples.

[Wayne]

The problem is he or she agreed to the announcement and then bailed last minute.  The community did not ask for a show with this event as the highlight.  But once it was told it was getting it and told it should tune in, it should have gotten it.  Amiga history clearly tells us that hype with no producing what was hyped is bad news.

Again, can't argue yesterday.  There were better ways to have handled it, including telling Bill and I "no".  Unfortunately it is what it is, and your choices are to get over it, or.... well, accept it.  

In reference to my missives for their(s) owner(s) and such, I'm simply trying to use language to let you know that I *will not* disclose the owners, nor will I, by use of language, drop hints as to who "they" are.  Male or Female, singular or plural, again, doesn't make any difference.

Whether or not you trust my word after 15 years does.

Wayne

[amigadave]

Please stay Jens.  I don't know what kind of personal information, other than perhaps an email address and/or website url that you don't want bombarded with spam  anyone might have placed here at A.org, that anyone should worry about being in the hands of any new owner(s), but I hardly think that it should be a reason for leaving.

@Thread, I truly believe that this whole mess is going to end in a huge anti-climax and everyone will be yelling about why it was such a big deal NOT to reveal the owner(s) identity(ies).

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but isn't it sort of clear who the new owner(s) is/are?  I may be wrong, as I have only my intuition, or common sense to tell me what that obvious answer is and no other evidence or inside information from anyone.

Isn't it likely that the new owner(s) is/are the same company that has recently gotten some criticism, either here or on other Amiga related website forums for advertising practices and then shortly afterward has gotten outright attacked for some unfavorable actions regarding a long running contest?  That same company would likely want to wait until the unfavorable attention has been mostly forgotten, or at least has stopped being written about before revealing themselves to be the new owners of Amiga.org and risk the unfavorable attitude regarding the other actions that are unrelated to this site having a negative impact here, and possibly even causing a few more members to leave here.  

Personally, I wish a few things had been handled better, that the owner either would have declined to announce themselves on ART in the first place, or had not decided to change their minds and gone through with the announcement, as what ever negative effect they might have perceived could have happened from going through with the announcement on schedule would most likely have not been as bad as their decision to retract their decision to go ahead with their revealing their identity(ies), but that is all water under the bridge now and we can only go forward.  Also, if my guess is correct, some other decisions that the company has made could have been handled a little bit better, but nobody is perfect and I have confidence in the company and their enthusiasm for supporting the Amiga community and I think that Wayne has made a good choice in finding a buyer for this site.

Again, I will just state that although I would like to know who the owner(s) are just like most of the rest of the members here, I will continue to put my trust in Wayne and Bill P. and only judge the new owners on what they do here in the future, not on the fact that I don't know their name(s) yet.

[takemehomegrandma]

Yes, it does. The man owns the site, and with it, access to personal information. I'd like to know who has access to that, and because I don't, I kindly request to delete my account and all it's accompanied personal data. Please do so before the end of the week. I may re-register if I like the new owner.

goodbye and thanks for all the fish,
Jens

IMHO it's not only about access to personal information.

In a community forum like amiga.org, you get to grow lots and lots of relationships with various people. Some you learn to trust, some you learn to distrust. Some you get to like, some you don't like as much. And you have a chance to act accordingly, i.e. all depending on whoever your counterpart is. Like mingling with guests at a party. Some people you don't like and you avoid them, but some people you really like and drag them away to the bar and have a long and pleasant conversation. But *the host* of the entire party is the *site owner*. In a way that is the most important relationship of them all in a community forum. Because if you dislike certain people you know is going to be at a party, you might still want to go there if you also know that you will have some good friends coming there as well. But if you don't like *the party host*, if you dislike his/her/their values, opinions, i.e. what they stand for, chances are that you choose to stay at home or go to someone else's party instead.

I think it's more than fair to let the guests know who's hosting the party. I want to know who I am building a relationship with. I want to know what he/she/they stand for. For example, I would never go to a party hosted by some Neo Nazi, Fascist or some ultra religious zealot. I wouldn't even want to be connected to that stuff in any way. I don't want to invest time, heart and thought into a party that's hosted by someone I might not even like.

Not disclosing this info is more than strange. It's stupid. And pathetic. If you aren't prepared to stand up as the site owner, you shouldn't have taken over the site to begin with.

[persia]

I think Wayne's words are pretty clear, he wouldn't sell us out.  Whoever he's sold the board to has to be for the good of the board.  The fact that he's staying on to assist to the new owner proves that, if any proof was needed.

[Piru]

you are making stuff up with no facts.

I don't think so. Which stuff did I make up? Obviously I cannot know who the real owner is (and I made some educated guesses), but the fact (as presented us by Wayne himself) is that Bill Panagouleas is "a middle man in this endeavor, and is now responsible for facilitating the web site's day-to-day operation. If this were a corporation, you could think of Bill P as the CTO (Chief Technology Officer)".

By all means and purposes he remains to be the closest thing we have for the "new owner".

In the post I am referring to you directly questioned Wayne's truthfulness.

That certainly wasn't my intention. I think you're reading too much into my comment.

[ffastback]

Isn't it likely that the new owner(s) is/are the same company that has recently gotten some criticism, either here or on other Amiga related website forums for advertising practices and then shortly afterward has gotten outright attacked for some unfavorable actions regarding a long running contest?  That same company would likely want to wait until the unfavorable attention has been mostly forgotten, or at least has stopped being written about before revealing themselves to be the new owners of Amiga.org and risk the unfavorable attitude regarding the other actions that are unrelated to this site having a negative impact here, and possibly even causing a few more members to leave here.  

Well that would be kind of crappy to announce after we've already been told that DFX's owner was only a middleman to get the deal done.

My guess, and its completely a guess is that Tedd Gallion is the anonymous Amizilla donor and the anonymous new owner of Amiga.org.  Now Bill says Tedd is not an employee, but he has posted under Bill's DFX account at aw.net a number of times and someone purporting to be him posts on Moo Bunny and even published an alleged email from Bill telling him to stop posting there.  In that case I guess they could still argue Bill is not the new owner, but it would come off as murky IMHO.

So anyway, I hope you and I are both wrong on our guesses.

[amigadave]

This site isn't a party and having any contact with the site owner is very unlikely unless the site owner wants to participate in the forums themselves, which if they are a very private person, is again very unlikely.

As for the new owner(s) views and opinions regarding how the site is to be run, Wayne has repeatedly stated that nothing is going to change and the new owner(s) have expressed that they have no intention of making changes, so until something does change, there is nothing we have to worry about, or to endlessly discuss.

Your party and host analogy only reaffirms the reasons I gave in my previous post why the new owner might not want to disclose their identity(ies).  If the new owner(s) have had some recent bad press elsewhere, or here in the forums, they would naturally not want to reveal themselves if more members here feel the way you do about the host/party analogy.

Yes, it is odd and uncomfortable that the new owner has not stepped in and introduced themselves to us the way we would have liked, but that is all it is and I think we should not be making more of it, or try to dissect the reason(s), or motives for such decision is a waste of time.  The reason given (being a private person(s) that does not want to be the center of attention) has obviously backfired as the amount of attention and discussion on this topic has become huge.  Maybe that is the real reason for not disclosing the identity(ies) of the new owner?  To generate more interest, even if it is causing negative attention, it is still attention bordering on sensationalism.  I certainly hope that is not the reason though.

[ffastback]

...it is odd and uncomfortable that the new owner has not stepped in and introduced themselves to us the way we would have liked

No its "odd and uncomfortable" that the new owner has not introduced themselves to us in the way they agreed to and bailed at the last minute from doing so.  There was never any request from the community that he/she reveal themselves on the ART show.

Either stick to your guns to stay anonymous from the start with no fanfare/circus or just politely introduce yourself without any hype/public promotion vehicles.  Whats so hard about that?

[takemehomegrandma]

This site isn't a party and having any contact with the site owner is very unlikely unless the site owner wants to participate in the forums themselves, which if they are a very private person, is again very unlikely.

I have been registered here for many years, I have made many posts, and in all those years and in all those posts, I don't think more than one or a few tops was directed at Wayne. Chatting with the site owner is obviously *not* what I was talking about above.

Wayne assured us that the new owners aren't Bill McEwen, Bill Buck, or Doomy. Why do you think he *even felt the need* to make such an "assurance"? So that nobody would feel that they were at risk having to have personal contact with these people? No, of course not, he did so because those are the worst kind of party hosts he himself can imagine, and he can also imagine what would happen to the amiga.org party if it would turn out that those were the new hosts, i.e. he fears that it would have a negative impact on guest attendance. I could easily add a few names who would have the same effect, like MikeyC, MikeB, Ben Hermans, Anonymous former Netscape Employees, etc.

As for the new owner(s) views and opinions regarding how the site is to be run, Wayne has repeatedly stated that nothing is going to change and the new owner(s) have expressed that they have no intention of making changes, so until something does change, there is nothing we have to worry about, or to endlessly discuss.

With all respect - Wayne doesn't have anything to say about what the new owners decide to do a bit down the road. But not even that was my point. My point was that *it does matter* who's throwing the party. And that anyone should have the right to decide to who's party to attend, and for that to be even possible, you must know who the party host is.

Your party and host analogy only reaffirms the reasons I gave in my previous post why the new owner might not want to disclose their identity(ies).  If the new owner(s) have had some recent bad press elsewhere, or here in the forums, they would naturally not want to reveal themselves if more members here feel the way you do about the host/party analogy.

And that is OK in your opinion?

I think there are many comments here suggesting otherwise. There is a reason to why people want to know. They want to know who's party they currently are visiting.

Yes, it is odd and uncomfortable that the new owner has not stepped in and introduced themselves to us the way we would have liked, but that is all it is

It's more than "odd" and "uncomfortable", it's close to outrageous.

and I think we should not be making more of it, or try to dissect the reason(s), or motives for such decision

Excuse me? Say what?

The reason given (being a private person(s) that does not want to be the center of attention)

Then he/she/they should perhaps *not* have taken over the biggest amiga forum on Internet? Come on...

[Boudicca]

As I said earlier Wayne, it's just poor really on the part of the new owner to indicate Do then Does Not !

Trust and Reputation is important when it comes to such a venerable site such as this, and the lack of trust shown leads me to wonder what else will be promised and not kept.

In you Wayne, I trust, knowing your kind words over the years however I do hope that something is learned from this experience and be they wish to be known or not, they should remember not to treat the user base so lightly in future.

[spookyx]

I think people should listen to wayne and not get carried away.  I am sure the information will come out in time.


as for my two cents on who the new owner(s) is,  I am betting its microsoft.....  just so they can say "Finely,  we can support a great OS and system"   hehe

[A1260]

if the new owner is gonna close the site or change it to something else than amiga. he will not have is name exposed, there is alot of amiganuts around. lets face it a.org as it is today you wil not earn money on, so changes must be done i guess. time will tell what will happen.

[Wayne]

I just posted this elsewhere and don't feel like retyping it.  It sums up all I have to say (and repeatedly said) on the matter, so here;

-------
On Monday, Nov 30, 2009, jorkany wrote:
>  
>  Maybe so, but I don't see how you will have any say in it once the
> domain  registration has been transferred.

Frankly, you're right (and even more frankly, I'm ok with that), but what everyone refuses to accept is that the new owner(s) sunk what is -- for the tiny and excessively verbal Amiga community -- a huge chunk of change into keeping the site up, live, and as it currently is.  

If you will actually stop to consider and accept that, the fact that they won't do anything stupid to destroy the property they just bought should be relatively obvious.

Not everyone buys a property in order to tear it down and build a parking lot.  I know that between Amiga Inc, Genesi, Hyperion, and a host of other companies it's par for the course, but the only thing that keeps Amiga.org going is you guys.  Without you guys, there isn't a site to worry about and the new owner(s) know that all too well.

They bought it because literally I said "I think I'll just shut it down one day soon".  As such, I'm absolutely confident in their word that they don't intend to screw it all up or sell it to Spanish lesbians.

Wayne

[motorollin]

I'm really jealous of some of the people posting in this thread. I wish my life were so simple and uneventful that I had to make such a big deal over something so insignificant. It must be nice to have so little stress in your life!

--
moto