Wil Sinclair wrote:
I personally care more about the message than the messenger
If only more people thought that way! Sometimes I feel like I have to
explain things to people like they were five because I confused them
with technical topics several years ago. People tell me to shut up all
the time, and often for the flimsiest of reasons. Like on the
advocacy_advisors list it turns out I was "moderated" because I was
supposedly off topic, but the moderator who took that unilateral
action won't tell me which posts were off topic or how to appeal, and
supposedly all of my posts there are going to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for topicality and those deemed topical will be
allowed. Even though both of those held for moderation since this
happened haven't been posted, and there have been no reasons offered
as to why they were not on topic.
Back before 2007, it seemed like there was going to be a never-ending
growth of editors, but when that turned into a slow decline, none of
the Foundation's strategic policy objectives changed. So now we are
still trying like mad to get the rights to copy marginally free works
that very few people have any interest in, but not lifting a finger to
help the typical potential editor, for whom life just keeps getting
worse in the current political climate. The Foundation has a lot of
resources and a lot of smart people, and I won't re-hash the list of
my suggestions now, but soon my associates and I will be able to use
the algorithms in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0500v1.pdf
to perform an
independent and transparent community support survey of updated
strategic objectives in support of community health.
Maybe the German Chapter's apparent refocus on supporting editors will help.
How about a race: Foundation staff verses community volunteers, to be
the first to perform a comprehensive editor support strategy survey?