As for the badges: I don’t really mind one way or the other. It is an issue raised by someone who seems to be a semi-regular conference attendee who was frosted by the change, and it seems it might have been a decision made by few and applied to many without communication. I don’t know that, but I threw it out in the hopes of being shown to be wrong.

Anyway, cheers and have a good long weekend, if you get one!

Regarding the survey, again, I’m not sure of 100% accuracy, but my educated guess is that the descriptions were debated at committee meetings, options were presented at the board meeting, so debate and refinement took place, and the question was put on the survey. Note that you are at liberty in the same survey to write an amended definition. Why was this approach taken? My guess, is because it is much easier to get large masses of people to approve or refine something already written than it is to beg to a 10,000 member mass to contribute something written and allow it to be refined by the membership.

The survey is a place of discussion. It specifically asks for input. It is a very good, direct, and almost intimate place for ideas to come in. It’s a pull mechanism. Its a ’seek’ mechanism. It isn’t a debate mechanism, and frankly I don’t understand what a debate would be about anyway. That’s just me.

As for volunteering, I’m glad to hear it. I’ve volunteered for years, too, and one of the most difficult parts of volunteering that I found is just how many loud voices citing mistaken and erroneous data and calling your integrity into question, not to mention your competence. It is infuriating, and yet as a ‘leader’ you are required to ignore direct shots at you. As a currently non-volunteer, I’m under no such caveats, and I get to call it like I see it.

Let me say I’ve watched years and years of this type of caviling. Every time, when you unravel the threads, the caviling is unsubstantiated. The bottom line is that real people make real mistakes. Sometimes decisions are made that are not how I would call it. And sometimes STC members should be glad of that!! At the end of the day, these are well intended people taking the info they have and acting in good faith. To talk about ‘bloat’ and ’secrecy’ is sheer ignorance.

A recent decision to mail badges to conference attendees before the conference, and to assign seating at the end-of-conference dinner were made due to popular request. Who is “popular”? Who made the request?

The currently proposed definition of technical writer: where was that discussed. We have forums and email and the STC likes sending out polls–though they often be vague. Where was that definition decided upon? Was it even written by a technical writer?

It’s fine to talk in generalities. How about those two examples?

I have another example where the Society polled a chapter membership and utterly ignored the chapter’s request to modify a biased poll to return better data.

Look, I’m glad the STC has volunteers. Guess what? I’m one. And, I volunteer at other stuff outside of the STC, too.

But, as a volunteer, I am not going to say we need seminars for members on how to stop whining. Instead, I’d rather have seminars for the Society leaders and staff on how to better consult with and listen to those members whom they perceive as whiners.

Cheers.

The BOK is to try to find the answers. Polls aren’t easy. Pollsters are devastatingly expensive. It takes time for polls to be constructed to get accurate information, there’s a learning curve (I know, I’ve created many). So some were ambiguous, and you might notice they appear to get more direct, lately.

Further, the BOK was developed out of a direct request by members to have more voice. You don’t even want to know what a small percentage of members respond, or vote for that matter.

While ‘the answer’ is relentlessly tracked down, STC is doing what it can, with what it has. Because ‘the answer’ being ’somewhere else’ really isn’t acceptable.

Eh? Did I say you did?

Get accurate, then complain, bash, whine, have a ball.

Cheers.

Let’s at least try to be accurate. Mailing badges decision? Definitely a decision made by the conference committee, and they’d have to tell you where the “overwhelming” requests came from. Part of the inaccuracy here is confusing committees with the association itself, and/or with the employees and/or with the board.

Get accurate, then complain, bash, whine, have a ball.

Blaming the customer or members is not the answer, either.

And, I don’t think a lot of the blame is aimed at the volunteers, but instead the institution as a whole.

A recent decision to mail badges to conference attendees before the conference, and to assign seating at the end-of-conference dinner were made due to popular request. Who is “popular”? Who made the request?

The currently proposed definition of technical writer: where was that discussed. We have forums and email and the STC likes sending out polls–though they often be vague. Where was that definition decided upon? Was it even written by a technical writer?

Etc.

No, I don’t think the answer is to label the membership as good-for-nothing whiners. I think the answer lies somewhere else.

Cheers.

There’s no secrecy. Everything, including meeting minutes, is posted on the web site, at minimum. Members are encouraged to attend board meetings. They are not secret. There are some sessions that are barred from general attendance because they are voting on things like awards, and this tends to ‘leak’ before the awards ceremony, so these are secret only until such time as the general announcement is made. In fact, it is fair to say that anything that isn’t broad knowledge immediately becomes broad knowledge in appropriate timeliness.

As for bloated PR enterprise, there is only one marketing person. That’s the whole department. There are a total of 8-10 employees. Where’s the bloat?

As for podcasts…granted some things take time. Members clamor for services, but most services depend upon volunteers, with only 10 employees to provide everything for a 10,000 member organization. Volunteered lately? If you want to start a wiki, and keep general interest in it up among 10,000 members, I’m sure the board will support your efforts.

The focus on BOK is because its in the STC mission. The board asked members what they wanted, and overwhelmingly, they wanted this focus. With ten employees and too few volunteers, there has to be a focus. Wikis probably kind of fell down the list under financial responsibility, and employer awareness. I’m just guessing, and apparently so are you. But the mission chart shows you where the STC focus has to be until things are properly in order (They’ve been out of whack and trying to be righted for some time. When you consider each board has to get up to speed to carry on the initiatives, it is no wonder that takes time.).

It apparent we do need seminars on how to stop whining (such as this post), and how to stop bashing volunteers.