o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
post 4.
incorporating responses to:
SB = Sean Barrett
SB: Perhaps we can get straight to the point:
SB: What do you hope to accomplish by repeating the standard Mk.1 Disgruntled User Rant, modified only by the Gratuitous Use of Fatuous Initialisms (GUFI)?
the purpose of an exit interview, as some organizations make use of them, is is to acquire from departing members an order of feedback information that for all sorts of humanly understandable reasons members are usually reluctant to share, or even proscribed from sharing, while still members of the group. a bit more directness, a bit more risk-taking, a lot less dancing around the bush, a lot less mincing of words, and in the case of WP, we can all drop that constant mental strain of trying to assume good faith of folk who behave like brown shirts, or brown sock-puppets in the current fashion.
the frank exchange of views so far allows me to extend my classification:
1. accurate reporters (AR's) 2. responsible scholars (RS's) 3. disgrunted users (DU's) 4. infantile vandals (IV's) 5. expert disrupters (ED's)
in order to learn from the welter of disressing phenomena that we are bound to encounter in any complex environment, and especially any system that involves large masses of interacting human beings, it helps to stand back a bit from the fray and try to guess what sorts of dynamics are driving the developments in question. lately, i have found myself spending a lot more time standing aback and a lot less time writing articles, and so i might as well share a few of my more persistent findings, plus a few more speculative guesses as to what the hell may be going on.
to be continued ...
jon awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o