[Ticket#: 2006040510000641] Re: [OT] Articles to read

[Marielle Lange]

> While I found much to agree with in your post, your gratuitous  
> swipes at
> "the severe cases of denial that key contributers to this list seem  
> to suffer from" was one I
> couldn't let pass without comment. I'm sure I'm on that list.

Dan,

Very very seriously. While I recognize your intention to be pure,  
there is no use to answer anything like "I couldn't let pass without  
comment. I'm sure I'm on that list." I am not sure you were on the  
list... but you if you weren't, you just voluntarily put yourself on it.

You are setting up a greater and greater divide between persons who  
have some valid criticisms to make and persons who refuse to let any  
single criticism pass without being justified/corrected.

Any form of communication contains information. Things are never said  
to hurt you, at a person level. Things are said to give you some  
information. If I person end up expressing something that hurt you at  
a personal level, then it is that something has been going wrong in  
the communication... and two persons (or more) had been involved in it.

You said you have never heard of problems with 2.7 on MacOSX. Some  
users of osx have already indicated on this list that like me they  
prefer to keep using 2.6 because they believe 2.7 is not stable  
enough yet.

I don't write it on the list everytime you write that 2.7 is "fine"  
on mac osx because, (1) I know that if I do so I will be attacked for  
doing so (this never fails!) and (2) like many, I by far prefer to  
make my criticisms in private... I only end up making them public  
when I have the feeling that my listener doesn't want to hear that he  
is doing anything wrong... and by doing so is heading in a wall.   
Like many users on this list, whenever I end up not being able to  
repress criticisms, is because *I do want runrev to strive* and I  
feel the need to encourage them to make better decisions.

The fact is that many valid points have been made that "key  
contributers to this list" have tried to dismissed inappropriately.  
That's the frustration expressed in the quote above.

To present on this list as invalid criticism what is a valid one and  
to start bitching the user who made such a criticism to try to reveal  
a weakness in his armour or question his status like has been  
happening a lot recently is really not the best way to proceed.

Let runrev protect themselves.... Your attitude suggests that you  
don't trust them for being able to do so. This message you send is  
more damaging to runrev's reputation than angry comments any unhappy  
user may make on the list.

I understand that many "key contributers to this list"  of this lists  
have their commercial/personal interests tightly tight up to the ones  
of runrev and they may feel tempted to defend runrev because  
defending revolution is defending their own interests. Still, let  
runrev protect themselves....

Personally, I do believe they are able to hear valid criticisms and  
use them for their benefit.  With the way "key contributers to this  
list", any criticism is being intercepted and prevented from reaching  
runrev's support. Only "happy" or "overprotective" comments are now  
authorized on this list. The fact that you currently *forbid* users  
to make any criticism means that it is about impossible for runrev to  
realize the extent of the problems. And this makes it impossible for  
them to FIX the problem.

On top, intercepting and dismissing criticisms increases rather than  
decreases the occurence of angry comments on the list. This is a very  
very unhealthy communication process.  The user who made the  
criticism starts to feel more and more frustrated as he has no place  
to express problems that nag him. He knows he is not supposed to make  
criticism on the list and he starts boiling. At one point, he cannot  
hold it anymore and "erupt" on the list. This was expressed by David  
Burgun recently. There will be less "eruptions" if users who have  
things that nag them are authorized to make the problems that nag  
them known and be reassured that the situation will improve.

I had some mishaps a month ago. Now I have much evidence that they  
are moving forward, in the right direction, and acting on the  
criticisms made to them. Heather recently posted an email reminding  
users of the best ways to make their reasons to be unhappy to  
runrev's support and so doing reassure users that they are very  
welcome (even invited) to make them aware of any problem with their  
product. Ken kindly offered a new version of his revzilla application  
(http://www.sonsothunder.com/devres/revolution/downloads/ 
RevZilla2.htm), which makes reporting problems to runrev a piece of  
cake.

There are some valid criticims made on this list... Presenting them  
as invalid is not a good option. Bitching the persons who toke the  
time to make these criticisms is not a good option either.

A better option is to acknowledge these criticisms for what they  
are ... problems that nag a user and because of this should be made  
known to runrev... and invite the user who made them to signal them  
to the support team, so they can be acted upon.

Marielle


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--------
Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: mlange at blueyonder.co.uk,

Homepage                                                            
http://homepages.widged.com/mlange/
Easy access to lexical databases                    http:// 
lexicall.widged.com/
Supporting Education Technologists              http:// 
revolution.widged.com/wiki/