[44net] Re: [ARDC:44Net] a communication about communications

Hi all, Responding briefly because today is a holiday in the U.S., but I don’t want to leave this conversation about transparency unaddressed until next week. I’m sharing some thoughts here on the subject of transparency, as well as next steps for how we might address some of the concerns shared in this thread and beyond. Sincere thank you Dan and others for voicing your thoughts and opinions here. These points in particular I take to heart: <quote> After the sale of the /10 (FTR, a move I fully supported and continue to support), this seemed to change. ARDC became much more involved in the daily operation of the network. With the new portal, the role of the coordinators seems greatly reduced. Public requests for public technical discussion involving ARDC-administered software (like AMPRGW) largely goes unanswered, or given perfunctory responses to file a ticket, often with little follow-up. Frankly, it's hard not to feel ignored. / From my perspective, things have become less collaborative, less experimental, and frankly far less transparent; there seems to be more top-down administration, and a lot less room for volunteer contribution. Pointing out errors in documentation is all well and good, but ignores the considerable areas in which others might usefully contribute. </quote> I agree that we could do a better job with being transparent. A clear learning from the most recent launch was that involving some of you in testing the portal prior to launch would have been helpful, as well as opening up discussions around any potential shifts in policies. There are certainly more lessons learned, and in the coming weeks - following a request from some of y'all – I’ll post a more comprehensive list. (Some staff members are in and out of town for the next couple of weeks, and I want to make sure to review with everyone prior to sharing, so thanks for your patience there.) On a related note, please understand that any lack of communication or greater engagement on our part has more to do with capacity (or lack thereof) than anything else. One of the key functions of our upcoming Technical Department Manager hire will be to interface with this community on a more regular basis. Even with such a hire, though, one thing is also true that is worth mentioning: there is no possible way to replace Brian Kantor. Inevitably, when someone exits an organization, something shifts. When someone enters, there is also a shift. And when Brian and ARDC’s board decided to sell part of the address space, there was a major shift there too. From the perspective of those of you who have been around for 10 years or more, I can see how these shifts have felt quite stark. Additionally, Brian used to run everything. When he passed away suddenly, he left no playbook. Given that, I am interested in learning from you how he engaged with you so that we can do a better job, to the best of our ability. Clearly newsletters and sharing announcements with the list isn’t cutting it. What specific and actionable steps can we take to better address your concerns? In addition to getting your feedback here, we’ll be talking about this a bit at the next Regional Coordinators’ meeting (July 27). We aim to hold these meetings regularly (at least every 1-3 months, depending on everyone's availability). Ok, this is a much longer email than I intended, but it’s as they say - if I had more time, I would write a shorter letter. Nevertheless, the point I’m trying to get across – which I hope is received – is that we are willing to learn from our mistakes and to do things better. We are all, in fact, on the same team – growing pains and all. For those in the US, I wish you a happy Independence Day. For everyone else, I hope you have a good weekend, and I look forward to picking up the conversation next week. 73, Rosy Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV Executive Director Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) ardc.net