...where's the equity in all of this?
One of the things that I'm struggling to deal with as a part of this issue is how it can be resolved, and how things can go back to "the way they were". Problem is, I'm not seeing a path forward.
#We don't know what an "apology" to this whole mess would look like.
We don't know what an "apology" to this whole mess would look like.
##Nor do I truly believe that it'd be accepted or considered acceptable.
Nor do I truly believe that it'd be accepted or considered acceptable.
The big things we have right now:
- Moderator resignations; lots of them. More are likely to come in the wake of anything else.
- Lots of disgruntled high-rep/respected contributors or curators; I'm definitely one of them.
- Lots of mistrust and animosity over the way things are communicated.
- A seeming march forward without either side getting the impression that they're being heard clearly enough (and with Stack Overflow Inc. paying the bills, they're the ones who will always get their way).
- Some uncertainty with a new CEO coming on board.
I opined in my linked article that I believed that my primary community was unsupported. That doesn't mean that it's broken; that means that when we encounter something broken, we don't have anyone to tell that it's broken except ourselves, and we're not able to really fix the broken, either.
We also have different definitions of "broken", much of which you touch on. These definitions of broken are not universal and are not one size fits all, as convenient as that might be.
The only thing I really want at this point is for the company to firmly own their decisions. Establish this as the new norm and own it. If this is how they wish to engage with us, then it is their duty to make that clear to us so that we don't have any room for ambiguity or uncertainty.
Reinstating moderators won't fix this, and it won't magically fix what has been a brewing communication issue for almost two years now. But if they establish the ground rules on what and how they choose to engage, then that's enough. It gives us the liberty to continue to engage with them.
...where's the equity in all of this?
One of the things that I'm struggling to deal with as a part of this issue is how it can be resolved, and how things can go back to "the way they were". Problem is, I'm not seeing a path forward.
#We don't know what an "apology" to this whole mess would look like.
##Nor do I truly believe that it'd be accepted or considered acceptable.
The big things we have right now:
- Moderator resignations; lots of them. More are likely to come in the wake of anything else.
- Lots of disgruntled high-rep/respected contributors or curators; I'm definitely one of them.
- Lots of mistrust and animosity over the way things are communicated.
- A seeming march forward without either side getting the impression that they're being heard clearly enough (and with Stack Overflow Inc. paying the bills, they're the ones who will always get their way).
- Some uncertainty with a new CEO coming on board.
I opined in my linked article that I believed that my primary community was unsupported. That doesn't mean that it's broken; that means that when we encounter something broken, we don't have anyone to tell that it's broken except ourselves, and we're not able to really fix the broken, either.
We also have different definitions of "broken", much of which you touch on. These definitions of broken are not universal and are not one size fits all, as convenient as that might be.
The only thing I really want at this point is for the company to firmly own their decisions. Establish this as the new norm and own it. If this is how they wish to engage with us, then it is their duty to make that clear to us so that we don't have any room for ambiguity or uncertainty.
Reinstating moderators won't fix this, and it won't magically fix what has been a brewing communication issue for almost two years now. But if they establish the ground rules on what and how they choose to engage, then that's enough. It gives us the liberty to continue to engage with them.
...where's the equity in all of this?
One of the things that I'm struggling to deal with as a part of this issue is how it can be resolved, and how things can go back to "the way they were". Problem is, I'm not seeing a path forward.
We don't know what an "apology" to this whole mess would look like.
Nor do I truly believe that it'd be accepted or considered acceptable.
The big things we have right now:
- Moderator resignations; lots of them. More are likely to come in the wake of anything else.
- Lots of disgruntled high-rep/respected contributors or curators; I'm definitely one of them.
- Lots of mistrust and animosity over the way things are communicated.
- A seeming march forward without either side getting the impression that they're being heard clearly enough (and with Stack Overflow Inc. paying the bills, they're the ones who will always get their way).
- Some uncertainty with a new CEO coming on board.
I opined in my linked article that I believed that my primary community was unsupported. That doesn't mean that it's broken; that means that when we encounter something broken, we don't have anyone to tell that it's broken except ourselves, and we're not able to really fix the broken, either.
We also have different definitions of "broken", much of which you touch on. These definitions of broken are not universal and are not one size fits all, as convenient as that might be.
The only thing I really want at this point is for the company to firmly own their decisions. Establish this as the new norm and own it. If this is how they wish to engage with us, then it is their duty to make that clear to us so that we don't have any room for ambiguity or uncertainty.
Reinstating moderators won't fix this, and it won't magically fix what has been a brewing communication issue for almost two years now. But if they establish the ground rules on what and how they choose to engage, then that's enough. It gives us the liberty to continue to engage with them.
...where's the equity in all of this?
One of the things that I'm struggling to deal with as a part of this issue is how it can be resolved, and how things can go back to "the way they were". Problem is, I'm not seeing a path forward.
#We don't know what an "apology" to this whole mess would look like.
##Nor do I truly believe that it'd be accepted or considered acceptable.
The big things we have right now:
- Moderator resignations; lots of them. More are likely to come in the wake of anything else.
- Lots of disgruntled high-rep/respected contributors or curators; I'm definitely one of them.
- Lots of mistrust and animosity over the way things are communicated.
- A seeming march forward without either side getting the impression that they're being heard clearly enough (and with Stack Overflow Inc. paying the bills, they're the ones who will always get their way).
- Some uncertainty with a new CEO coming on board.
I opined in my linked article that I believed that my primary community was unsupported. That doesn't mean that it's broken; that means that when we encounter something broken, we don't have anyone to tell that it's broken except ourselves, and we're not able to really fix the broken, either.
We also have different definitions of "broken", much of which you touch on. These definitions of broken are not universal and are not one size fits all, as convenient as that might be.
The only thing I really want at this point is for the company to firmly own their decisions. Establish this as the new norm and own it. If this is how they wish to engage with us, then it is their duty to make that clear to us so that we don't have any room for ambiguity or uncertainty.
Reinstating moderators won't fix this, and it won't magically fix what has been a brewing communication issue for almost two years now. But if they establish the ground rules on what and how they choose to engage, then that's enough. It gives us the liberty to continue to engage with them.