Open Stack

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Anita Kuno wrote:

> At present, I am beginning to wonder to what degree you are being honest
> with us? Is you intention to know the candidates or to communicate your
> dissatisfaction with the current blog post situation?

You'll note that I didn't have anything to say about the blog
situation until this week, after the emails with voting links were
already out (I've already voted). That's on purpose. I didn't want to
cloud my genuine desire to know the candidates with other issues nor
distract this thread for its original purpose until everyone who
wanted to had a chance to have their say. There's been another issue
(about "downstream") that I've not responded to because of exactly this.

I wouldn't have joined the commentary on the blogging issue if there
hadn't already been a fair bit of talk about how fixing the feedback
loop was one of the roads to improving. Also, critically, when Doug
(who I can see is just trying to point out the current picture of
reality so I'm not criticizing him, in fact I'd like to laud his
efforts in pursuit of "write it down" which he has mentioned many
times) pointed out the existing situation there were, effectively, bugs:

* disconnected taxonomy in the presentation of the blogs
* misconceptions about the frequency of postings

If we can clear up those preconceptions then we can find the stable
state from which improvements can be made.

It is true that I have dissatisfaction about the visibility of the
TC and I think a lot of the candidates have made it clear that they
are concerned with that issue too. That's great!

> It is detrimental to our overall electoral process if folks cloak
> personal points of disagreement in the guise of open discussion.

I would think that disagreements are in fact exactly the reason for
having open discussion and such discussion is one of the best ways
to know where people stand. I didn't, however, have that in mind
when I responded to clarify things with Doug.

Apparently my efforts to be lighthearted about that didn't quite
play as I planned, and for that I apologize. As I was looking for
blog postings I found so _few_ that I assumed any statements of
there's 3 here and 4 over there[1] (covering the last greater than a
year) were similarly lighthearted. I guess my expectations are way
off?

> I do continue to hope that candidate statements and responses are
> helpful to the electorate and that they cast their ballot without
> feeling that doing so is an indication about their feelings regarding a
> secondary issue.

I can't let this go without making yet another comment. I feel like
I should just leave it alone because apparently I'm in deep water
but: In what fashion is the effectiveness of TC communication a
"secondary issue"?

No, we're not going to solve it immediately and really we don't need
to hash over the policies and procedures of the past. We might,
however, like to make it better for the future.

[1] This statement is not a quote and is not even supposed to be a
representation of any truth, just a conveyance of the feeling of the
moment, thank you very much.

-- 
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent