It is imperative to an organisation that is of its membership, that criticism of its leaders be given a wide berth. I would like to discuss this principle.
4 Likes
It’s difficult to define a line between criticism and abuse/heckling. Obviously criticism can be healthy, but crossing that line to abusive behavior causes significant harm to the environment. The problem is that line is going to look different to different people.
That’s part of the problem we’re having here. What some people still see as criticism, others believe has solidly crossed the line and become abusive. I would argue that out of the generally uninvolved members, more have come forward believing the behavior is detrimental to the space, and very few have supported it.
Where it’s hard to determine that line, the general consensus is the only way we can gauge the situation and keep some civility.
6 Likes
Criticism, at least the type I think is being referred to in original post, needs to be constructive to be effective, i.e. it needs to be meant to create awareness and/or meaningful change and/or have a chance to affect a given outcome.
Simply objecting over and over and over does little good after it is clear those with the final say have made a ruling. Here’s proof:
11 Likes
I think in the case you are referring to but not Ben, the ruling has not happened by the board collectively but instead by individual board members and officers. This is the criticism at hand- that individual board members cannot make any official decision that has not been expressly permitted by the rules/rulings to individual board members by the board.
Why do I suddenly feel like Walter?
1 Like
It’s actually pretty easy, Anything aggressive, abusive, mocking, taunting, person insults, criticism of anything personal( religion, lifestyle, or race etc etc, anything involving pre dms life choices would all be wrong, anything drawing attention to decision actions behavior or demeanor related to Dms would be oI regardless of how it makes you feel or how it’s taken by said individual
Just because you don’t like how something someone says makes you feel, if you act of in ie vengeance or retaliatory you’re obviously not the caliber person we need in a leadership role at Dms! Taking criticism even at its harshest, and moving forward without seeking retribution is a sign of maturity and competent leadership!
2 Likes
The original post was severely deficient, then, if it is that hard to understand what is actually going on. It appears it’s just more passive-aggressive posting at that point.
[my emphasis]
You don’t know this. It may more accurate to say it hasn’t happened officially (at least not documented), but I bet that a majority of directors are aligned as to these issues, albeit unofficially.
Could it be the shared propensity and predilection for pedantry, perhaps? (sorry about that, it’s national alliteration day)
2 Likes
Where would you like to discuss it? I am free to meet for coffee if you want.
3 Likes
The board is always collectively because they cannot make decisions outside of at least a quorum in a meeting or unanimous by writing. That is the board.
It is easy to tell if they made a decision or not because it would be on the wiki in some form.
Lara and James, however did respond to Raffi and tell him that they would not be perusing the matter. The criticism was that they are not allowed to make that decision- to ignore a Formal Complaint. Perhaps, Raffi was unable to clearly describe this by himself and each time it was closed, it prevented others from contributing. The last try resulted in him actually getting banned from Talk, which is current. This was actual criticism of DMS leadership that resulted in a banning and ties into the topic at hand.
Thank you. We get criticized and second guessed 24/7/365. Not all decisions are perfect but I will offer that the D&O always have the best interest of DMS in mind. Some decisions are not always in our hands such as the current closure.
8 Likes
Is it possible that they did this after talking with other directors? i.e. the decision to not take up what seems to have been deemed a frivolous or moot complaint was arrived (arroved? arriven? whatever…fck it) was made by 3 or more directors?
Maybe the shouldn’t, but as a matter of practicality and often necessity they do, and often need to. My feeling is it depends on the nature of the decision. In your interpretation, the BoD could be subjected to frivolous, malicious, moot, or idiotic formal complaint after frivolous, malicious, moot, or idiotic formal complaint and have to deal with each and every one formally informal BoD meetings. I for one reject that interpretation. My stance is supported and well recognized in better functioning justice/court systems…people that abuse the process are eventually disallowed from using process and seeking its remedies.
Let’s face it…we KNOW we have many members with a propensity and predilection for pedantry that would enjoy nothing more than the endless mental masturbation and exercise of their advanced degrees in rationalization and sophistry, and time-wasting of that type of repeated exercise, and the BoD would be quickly inundated by such types.
The real question is, when the BoD dosn;t conform to yhour way of thinking, or even the By-laws and rules, what are you really going to do about
7 Likes
As is being told “no” by someone in authority, accepting the decision, and moving forward without repeatedly asking the same question and/or “why.”
1 Like
Let’s not delve into the actual criticism too deeply as the topic is about giving criticism of DMS leadership in general a wide berth and finding a way to not ban someone for expressing it.
While I agree with you on this in principle, your inconsistency and change of heart in this area doesn’t exactly make you the ideal messenger for this sentiment.
2 Likes
Whom are you addressing?
If you are addressing me, I’m not certain what you mean by change of heart. I spoke strongly about keeping topics out of the public a while back but never, that I can recall, about keeping them away from the membership.
EDIT: I do remember saying that we should segment out talk and use the groups feature to allow people to subscribe to administrative topics.
It would seem to me that the best way to criticize is to stand for election to the board. The job strikes me as much headache and heartache with not a lot of compensation. Let those who believe that can do better, stand for election and the membership can decide.
I feel, strongly, that the board is doing quite well in what is an unprecedented situation. They are worthy of our support.
It is easy to criticize, however, taking the wrong actions could conceivably lead to the end of the DMS.
9 Likes
I probably know more about needing to keep talk open than anyone. When the last board banned the finance team I used talk to make my case to the membership. Having access to speak to the membership was key to the political process to work.
Want to criticize the D&O, go ahead. Keep it civil! You want to call me old, fat and bald? While true I don’t have to agree with you.
13 Likes
Oh, there are shed-loads of compensation. That is if by compensation you mean antacids and human hemorrhoids. Otherwise, no, not a lot of compensation.
2 Likes
I am glad you agree with this principle. I think the moderators may need some new guidelines of how to deal with leadership criticism instead of not looking deeper before closing the topic and banning someone.
Well…you are not totally bald. So you have that going for you.
And if you ever want to remind yourself what it feels like to run you hands through a soft and luxurious head of hair, PM me.
4 Likes
It seems every day I come to talk there is a new thread thinly veiled at another way to bitch about the board or someone else. I haven’t paid attention enough to say which individuals are doing this but there sure seems to be a clique and agenda. This post falls into that category.
5 Likes