Hi Bishakha
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bishakha
I am not sure if you are intentionally leaving out Pranav or if that was
an oversight.
Not sure what you mean - could you clarify?
Sure, As I recall, the conference had two main organizers, Pradeep and
Pranav. As of writing this, both of them have taken more or less a similar
course of action. Pranav's report, which I do believe was written with
Pradeep's knowledge and agreement, while not exactly in his complete
opinion, mention politics as an issue, as does his blog.
I was merely asking, why you are focusing on departure of one community
member and not the other involved in the same event in the same position?
What elicited this empathy that may not be as apparent for Pranav.
I think that was my intention.
I don't know how you can think reporting itself was the problem, I'm
really confused how you formed that impression. We can of course, start
lying, avoid any cautionary tales and keep repeating "all is great", or you
can actually confront the situation.
Hey, I'm never in favour of whitewashing, ignoring or turning a blind eye
to shortcomings - but it is important to be constructive in giving feedback
and to take personal responsibility as well. I'm totally in favour of all
that, as is evident from my questions. Certainly not advocating 'no
reporting'; I'm in favour of strengthening the reporting.
If, as Srikanth suggests, others who worked on WCI 2011 write in with
their comments and suggestions, this would help greatly in analysing what
worked, what didn't, and what we can carry with us to the next conf.
I don't find criticism as destructive, knowing our fault and short-comings,
is how we improve. The other option is denial.
What would have been more helpful in this case? No report, or a
white-washed report, after which both organizers leave. As I said, earlier,
this is a conflicting point, I can see your perspective and understand it,
but I can also see the other side of the argument. We haven't had a lot of
post-event discussion openly, how else would we even find out what the
point of contentions were, if they both just left after a thankful report.
We can all write smaller reports on what we did, but none of us on the
list, were in the hot-seat like those two. They were the main organizers,
and as much as we can add our own perspectives, we can not know theirs,
until they report it themselves.
Regards
Theo