Open Stack

Thank you for your honest and forthright reply, Chris. I shall respond
inline.

On 04/28/2015 02:11 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> 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.

Thank you for holding your actions true to your original intent, Chris,
I appreciate that.

One of the issues affecting elections is that our electorate is growing
so quickly, fewer people in the electorate feel involved. I appreciate
that you withheld your commentary until after you had voted, however
voting is still open.

> 
> 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.

I too would like to laud Doug in his efforts to clarify and improve the
situation.

However I wonder if perhaps the conversation could have taken place in
its own thread where others, who possibly didn't want to be seen as
weighing in on the candidate's statements thread had thoughts to share
on this topic?

> 
> 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!

I am glad that you are feeling your concerns are being addressed.

> 
>> 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.

Clarifying disagreements and working towards consensus in a respectful
way are indeed the purpose of having open discussion. My point is that
if our approach to learning about the candidates becomes a platform for
folks with personal points of grievance to come to the fore that
actually undermines the open discussion process.

> 
> Apparently my efforts to be lighthearted about that didn't quite
> play as I planned, and for that I apologize.

Thank you, Chris.

> 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 encourage people who feel that they are unable to understand or
access the TC and its activities in a meaningful way to communicate
their needs so that the current TC can address those needs. Should there
be an attempt to do so and the attempt is dismissed or ignored then it
is fair game for a new field of candidates to weigh in.

> 
>> 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

You aren't in deep water. I asked if you were being honest. You are
indicating in both word choice and tone that you are, I appreciate and
respect that, thank you.

> but: In what fashion is the effectiveness of TC communication a
> "secondary issue"?

It is difficult for the current field of 19 candidates to discuss TC
communication effectively as less than 25% of current candidates had any
ability to influence the current situation. Sure if you like we can all
say "I'll do better" but that is not nearly as effective as bringing up
the issue with the folks whose decisions created the situation in the
first place. I propose that in future should such issues arise that they
move to their own thread so that all concerned with that issue feel free
to participate in the discussion without concern that they may colour
the electorate's evaluation of the current field of candidates.

> 
> 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.
> 

My concern was primarily for retaining the integrity of the impartial
nature of querying candidates in an election contest.

Thank you, Chris, for honestly describing the motivation for your
actions as well as those places where you did not act, thank you.

Thank you,
Anita.