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

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:38 PM Rosy Schechter via groups.io <rosy=ardc.net(a)groups.io> wrote: Might one offer a different viewpoint for consideration? Everything happens in some sort of context. In this case, the context is 44Net, how it works, and how that has changed given events in the last 5 or so years, particularly around communication. I think it's fair to say that administration under Brian Kantor was both collaborative, and what one might describe as, "light touch." Volunteer voices were valued, and administration was spread informally around a group of people; those who were interested in doing the work volunteered and did the work, and were welcomed in doing so. This system was not always perfect (for instance, some coordinators were inattentive, and one former coordinator had a criminal record that made me, at least, extremely uncomfortable whenever I had to interact with him [note: this is not trolling; this was a matter of public record that legitimately freaked me out]). In the old manner of doing things, the volunteer coordinators expended significant time, energy and in some cases money, to assist with the administration of the network. They developed relationships with users, and bore the brunt of handling day-to-day requests, etc. WB6CYT was the overall anchor holding this crew together, true, but much of the work was outsourced. 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. One of the more vocal folks here has been a coordinator. Putting myself in the position of the coordinators, a way to look at this is that the work they had put in: building rapport with users, doing tech support, walking new folks through getting online, was simply discarded. Moreover, sincere offers to help with reducing the backlog of tickets have seemingly been ignored; recall that these folks have already spent considerable amounts of their own time and energy building relationships that could make this easy, and up until the introduction of the new portal, they were entrusted to do just that...why not take them up on something they've already shown aptitude and desire to do? Since we're talking about respectful communication, I can say that, if I were in that situation, I'd probably feel pretty disrespected: wouldn't you? None of this is to suggest that harassment or outright trolling is useful, or should be excused, let alone tolerated; I'm not a party to the off-list harassment that took place, so I cannot comment on that at all. Nor am I a coordinator and in fairness, I have no insight into what's going on other than what's been publicly shared on this list. But I do have my own experiences and observations to draw on, and taking a step back, what I observe has happened is that the context in which 44net operates has fundamentally changed, but that has not been clearly or sufficiently communicated to the existing stakeholders (and the coordinators and users _are_ stakeholders!). 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. It's fine for the context to change, of course, but if we want a healthy, vibrant community going forward, it is not ok for that to happen without open communication. And right now, communication from ARDC to the larger community does not feel very open. As a concrete example, that the rollout of the new portal has been rough has been acknowledged by all parties. But have there been any formal (or even informal!) "lessons learned" recorded in the wake of that? Will they be shared publicly? Is there anything actionable to come out of that? If ARDC were to embark on a similar software project tomorrow, what would be done differently? Would members of the community be invited to be more involved from the start? Would the resulting source code be open? Speaking as a professional software engineer, I can't help but feel if that there had been more engagement from the outset, many of the rougher edges in the portal launch could have been avoided, and --- I admit I'm purely speculating here --- perhaps the present sad situation would never have materialized as a result. Again, I'm not trying to defend harassment. But the road of respect goes both ways, and I respectfully wonder if ARDC has critically examined its own role here. In my opinion, it could start with more transparency and more communication and engagement with the community at large, and especially with the volunteers who have given much of themselves to the community and asked for little in return. Am I being unreasonable? - Dan C. (KZ2X)