>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield <mich...@lustfield.net> writes:
Michael> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on
Michael> poor behavior by some individuals instead of being based on
Michael> the active efforts of those trying to improve the end
Michael> result (
The CFV was not posted to punish anyone. The CFV was posted because I
believe (and continue to believe) we had reached a point of diminishing
returns.
These discussions do have real costs.
Ian speaks of how having a compressed timeline forces people to
rearrange their schedules.
There are also constant costs for the entire timeline for which
something like this is open. You need to have people prepared to jump
in and facilitate discussions.
Many people feel they need to follow closely because the first who
respond to new ideas have significant influence over everyone's thought
process on those ideas.
And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
ways.
This sort of thing is expensive no matter how you handle it.
And yes, this last week, particularly this last few days has been
dragging on.
I will be shocked if I find that a significant number of people
rank another option between G+D and D.
I did contact the most active member of the community team. They made
it clear that this conversation was too confrontational and they didn't
have emotional bandwidth for that.
No, I do not believe the community team was an effective option.
I did not contact the community team as a unit in this instance. I have
found they are too slow for what we need now when contacted as a team
rather than as individuals.
