Timeline for Has anyone tried approaching any of the investors to improve community-company communication?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2020 at 8:59 | comment | added | hek2mgl | @GhostCatsalutesMonicaC. I'm inclined to smile, even if I'm not convinced :) | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 8:56 | comment | added | GhostCat | @hek2mgl Evil is a subjective judgement. Dont forget about hanlons razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 8:51 | comment | added | hek2mgl | I see that and I know you are right saying that, but the thing is that it doesn't help me. They changed the license, that's incredibly evil! And now nice, non-saying words?? That just feels like extra pain | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 8:47 | comment | added | hek2mgl | Well, he is actually saying nothing with many words | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 20:21 | comment | added | ColleenV | @GhostCatsaysReinstateMonica If Meta can be killed by me writing a polite letter to a board member expressing my opinion about issues I think merit their attention, it deserves to die. It’s not good to become so attached to something outside your control that you’re afraid to express yourself for fear of losing it. Meta is going to go away at some point, because all things end eventually. Regardless, I am neither toxic nor typical. I do what I think is right and favor honesty and transparency over not rocking the boat because I have faith people can handle it. I rarely regret it. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 19:09 | comment | added | aparente001 | @GhostCat - I learned about back channel methods from watching Madam Secretary. There, back channel meant, go through a CIA operative. Hmm. What would it be in this context? And would it be ethical to do so? Those are rhetorical questions to self. At any rate, that is not what I was trying to get at with my question. I would strongly recommend that you ask a Meta question about whether it would be a good idea, or perhaps ethical, to attempt to contact one or more members of the BoD, because as interesting as your opinion is, I do not find it on point for the question I asked here. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 18:59 | history | edited | GhostCat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 310 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2019 at 18:46 | comment | added | GhostCat | to agree with SE Inc. management that META is a useless place, and that the company acts quickly with all that loop stuff, so that they get feedback from their, so that META can be safely ignored in the future, or closed down altogether. Make no mistake, individuals speaking up to board members can easily be seen as "typical community members". Are you up to that? | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 18:45 | comment | added | GhostCat | @ColleenVpartedways Because form matters. The job of a board member is to ensure that the company management acts in the long term interests of the owners and investors of that company. Sure, when you can come up with a rock solid message that gives good evidence why the current SE Inc. management decisions negatively affect the business, then chances are people will listen to you. If you don't have that, the message that actually gets over could be "pesky META people are now spreading their toxicity all over the place". So that board members get the idea ... | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 18:09 | comment | added | ColleenV | I still don’t see why you think that contacting board members is a “side-channel”. The board is exactly who needs to hear this stuff if someone feels that talking directly to company employees is unproductive. I don’t understand why you think I should have to get a group of people together that share my opinion before I can express it without being too bothersome. I am an educated, thoughtful, moral person and anyone that doesn’t appreciate my feedback as a customer about a company they’re invested in is unworthy of it (but I will grace them with it if I want to nonetheless ;)) | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 18:05 | comment | added | aparente001 | @ColleenVpartedways - Have you yourself tried yet? If you don't mind my asking. I believe in leaving no stone unturned, and this is a stone that just occurred to me today. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:55 | history | edited | GhostCat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 461 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:48 | comment | added | ColleenV | I don’t understand why y’all think you have to be careful not to annoy people. Every day someone is annoyed by something. Usually getting annoyed is motivation to fix whatever is annoying you. It took me years to break the bad habit of not standing up for myself because I didn’t want to bother anyone, and it annoys me to see that same fear of engaging with another person because they’re too important to be troubled with one person’s opinion. I am confident that the professionals on the board can handle being contacted, and likely welcome sincere, civil feedback. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:15 | comment | added | Stop Harming the Community | Getting a single message from a large group is definitely more powerful than some messages from individuals, and less likely to be annoying. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:07 | comment | added | aparente001 | @Lewis - My point was that when Colleen originally used the word "annoy," she was responding to your point of view. I never proposed trying to annoy anyone, and neither did Colleen. // Thanks for explaining your motivation. I get it. You might not realize this, but somewhere around maybe late October, I wrote a post where I published a collection of names and titles of SE staff that I found through a simple LinkedIn search. I deleted it within minutes because I realized that that was not constructive and could potentially end up hurting individual people. But these names are on the co. site. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:04 | comment | added | user377035 | @ColleenVpartedways I quoted what you said, "but warning people away from annoying people with the power to change something". [emphasis mine]. Fundamentally, I somewhat agree with you. I just don't want the human aspect in this to get lost. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:03 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Lewis Using public contact information to contact someone to tell them something about an entity they are publicly involved with is not “intentionally annoying” them. I don’t have to be quiet because other people might be contacting the same people. Those other people don’t speak for me. If more people were bold enough to provide civil and thoughtful feedback to people with the power to affect things, the world would be a better place. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:43 | comment | added | aparente001 | @Lewis - I think you may have misunderstood Colleen's comment. Let me rephrase it (as I understood it): In my opinion, if you (or someone else) tells us, "Please don't try to find out if others have attempted to contact the BoD because that could be felt as annoyance by them," that would be tantamount to defending the status quo. // By the way, I think she has a good point. Plus, I still don't see how warning me that it could be felt as annoying addresses my question. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:39 | comment | added | user377035 | @aparente001 No, that comment is in response to "but warning people away from annoying people with the power to change something for the better is defending the status quo in my opinion". | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:38 | comment | added | aparente001 | @Lewis - Wait, are you saying that I am intentionally annoying someone? | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:37 | comment | added | aparente001 | @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man - I like "collaborate" and I like "open letter." But when things are sooo stuck, a dialogue is generally needed. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:34 | comment | added | user245382 | Perhaps we could collaborate to create ONE open letter and send it to each of the board members ONCE. That way it solves the "10th person..." issue. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:28 | comment | added | user377035 | I'm not "defending the status quo", or at least not intentionally. I'm just trying to remember that there are real people behind this at the end of the day. Great, they may have the power to change things for the better - but intentionally annoying them to achieve that goal lacks a little "humanity" as far as I'm concerned. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:23 | comment | added | ColleenV | The folks who are afraid to annoy people never change anything. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. One can be polite, communicate what someone should know about the entity their money is invested in, and then let them do with that information what they will; that’s not harassment. The contact information that’s public is probably filtered and using it may have no effect, but warning people away from annoying people with the power to change something for the better is defending the status quo in my opinion. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:12 | comment | added | user377035 | This is essentially what I was getting at. I suppose "harassment" was probably too strong a word - but the crux of it lies in this, "you have no knowledge whether you are the 10th person coming to annoy one of these board members". Contacting them in a public space is definitely a valid option, however. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 16:08 | history | answered | GhostCat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |