DAB & transparency

[orion]

Since this thread viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23055 was being hijacked (guilty as charged) about DAB and transparence.

I fill that it needs its own thread for discussion to keep the for mentioned thread clean.

bruce would be the representative for DAB if you're not in one of the top 5 teams.

Now the DAB forum is the one forum that should be read only for all of us "non member" members since it does impact us.

[7im]

Beta transparency worked so well when all the usual suspects wanted that, why not screw up another part fah?

[orion]

So donors reading what impacts them on DAB would screw up F@H? I don't see it.

Just like I didn't think opening up beta to read only has hurt it. What I do think hurt beta was making beta flags public.

That and letting the usual suspects whine about BA ppd some were getting in that section.

[mdk777]

why not screw up another part fah?

Well, reaching 5 year lows in participation and production would seem to indicate that the current methods are not optimal.

EDIT: Talking about general practices...regarding the open Beta: I would guess that the participation and prompt feedback from the current Beta could only be described as well above average.

And since the previous thread is now scheduled for deleting, I will repeat my opinion here:

It is a question of why PG commits PR suicide on a regular basis.

The only way...as confirmed by a thousand consultants...to avoid the appearance of impropriety, appearance of favoritism, or generally to head off any negative PR is to address issues :

1. Rapidly...time delays give the appearance you are "guilty". If you wait too long...opinions are already set and are 10x harder to reverse
2. Openly...allow all, those pro or con...to see the process. Those who "loose" at least will understand why.
The Chicago Schools are in the process now of RE-reviewing the schools that need to be closed. The budget, union contract, school infrastructure will not change...only this time it will be public and all stake holders will understand the hard choices that have to be made.

PG always violates these two fundamental LAWS of PR, and the results are not only predictable...they are guaranteed.
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!

[7im]

If they had kept the beta flags hidden, you'd have the same people like yourself calling out PG to unhide them.

And nothing in the DAB impacts donors! DAB is an open discussion and donor feedback channel, much like the forum. NOTHING gets decided in the DAB or in this forum. When PG does come to a decision, they post the info on the Fah Blog or here in the forum.

Why don't we ask the current DAB members if they think opening up would be a net benefit to all?!

[orion]

If they had kept the beta flags hidden, you'd have the same people like yourself calling out PG to unhide them.

Wrong, people like myself would not have wanted them un-hidden so don't go there, you don’t know me.

And nothing in the DAB impacts donors! DAB is an open discussion and donor feedback channel, much like the forum. NOTHING gets decided in the DAB or in the forum. When PG does come to a decision, they post the info on the Fah Blog or here in the forum.

How do you know that? Are you a member of DAB or are you being feed info that you shouldn't be getting from a DAB member/s?

Why don't we ask the current DAB members if they think opening up would be a net benefit to all?!

Were the beta members asked if they wanted their forum opened up before it was?

[rjbelans]

As a DAB representative myself, I could not see the DAB being what it is without keeping it hidden from public view. We discuss things, like the QRB for GPU, changes to BA, and opening the Beta forums to public viewing, in there in advance of a decision being made and announcing it publicly. If everything in there was publicly viewable, then there would be no use of even having it because eveybody would be posting about the topics outside of the DAB forum section (probably more on other forums).

7im is correct, we don't make the decisions in the DAB forum. We have the open discussions about the topics and then PG makes the decision they feel is appropriate based on the feedback we have provided. He knows this because that's what was posted in the FahBlog when the group was formed.

I hope everybody understands that we are donors too. We were selected by our teams to represent the donors viewpoint in helping PG to make better decisions. Our team forums are open to the public for viewing (and posting if you are willing to create a free account), and we all take into account all posts that we have seen in making our recommendations to PG.

[7im]

[mdk777]

in there in advance of a decision being made and announcing it publicly.

Timing is indeed the issue that many donors complain about.
The OP in one thread had just invested in a 4P system.
Had he known a "rethink" of the the point system were even under consideration, he has stated he would have delayed his decision.

This is a repeat of GPU1, BigADV 12, etc. etc. etc.

How many times do you need to repeat the debacle before you learn that the current system is not working?

While fundamentally changing DAB might not be the answer, improving the timeliness and effectiveness of the communication by (whatever means) is certainly the answer.

It appears that only 1/2 of the communication loop has been established. PG can get feed-back from donor advisory...but donors are not getting communication back.

[rjbelans]

I don't have the reference handy, but Dr. Pande had posted about a year ago that they were looking at implementing the QRB on GPU units. Also, it has always been conveyed to donors that hardware descisions should be carefully considered knowing that things can, and will, change over time.

One of our goals as donors on the DAB is to try to encourage PG to improve communications. From what I've seen, they have improved, but yes there is still room for more improvement in the future.

[7im]

why not screw up another part fah?

Well, reaching 5 year lows in participation and production would seem to indicate that the current methods are not optimal.

EDIT: Talking about general practices...regarding the open Beta: I would guess that the participation and prompt feedback from the current Beta could only be described as well above average.

And since the previous thread is now scheduled for deleting, I will repeat my opinion here:

It is a question of why PG commits PR suicide on a regular basis.

The only way...as confirmed by a thousand consultants...to avoid the appearance of impropriety, appearance of favoritism, or generally to head off any negative PR is to address issues :

1. Rapidly...time delays give the appearance you are "guilty". If you wait too long...opinions are already set and are 10x harder to reverse
2. Openly...allow all, those pro or con...to see the process. Those who "loose" at least will understand why.
The Chicago Schools are in the process now of RE-reviewing the schools that need to be closed. The budget, union contract, school infrastructure will not change...only this time it will be public and all stake holders will understand the hard choices that have to be made.

PG always violates these two fundamental LAWS of PR, and the results are not only predictable...they are guaranteed.
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!

Let me show you examples of how it's done...

It's much more likely the world recession and world trends towards mobile devices accounts for much more of the decline in participation than anything you claim. Well, those, plus the trend towards BigAdv the last few years, where people sell off their computer farms and run a couple high density servers instead.

Giving by the Rich Dropped $30-Billion During Recession And if the rich can't afford to give as much, the average user surely can't.
Personal Cloud Will Replace the Personal Computer as the Center of Users' Digital Lives by 2014

And here is more proof that any kind of excellent PR can overcome those socio and economic trends. The FAH WIKI page was the featured article on Wikipedia 3 weeks ago. A great honor, really. Great PR, right? Yes, absolutely. The page went from ~500 hits a day to over 24,000 hits, and took several days to return to the old level.

And yet active client counts are still dropping... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... pY1E#gid=7

[orion]

7im is correct, we don't make the decisions in the DAB forum. We have the open discussions about the topics and then PG makes the decision they feel is appropriate based on the feedback we have provided. He knows this because that's what was posted in the FahBlog when the group was formed.

I've reread mine and mdk777 post and do not see where either of us thought that decisions were made in DAB. So I don't know were 7im got that idea.

We discuss things, like the QRB for GPU, changes to BA, and opening the Beta forums to public viewing, in there in advance of a decision being made and announcing it publicly.

Then things are being discussed that may and have impacted donors.

If everything in there was publicly viewable, then there would be no use of even having it because eveybody would be posting about the topics outside of the DAB forum section (probably more on other forums).

And the mods would be locking post like that as they did when people were posting about beta projects in the open forum.

I would think that as a DAB representative would want as much feedback from their team on things being discussed that could impact them.

[7im]

Since no decisions are made by the DAB their discussions really don't impact anyone then do they?

[mdk777]

I don't have the reference handy, but Dr. Pande had posted about a year ago that they were looking at implementing the QRB on GPU units.

You prove my points twice in one sentence .

[rjbelans]

Not sure what points I'm proving by letting you know that I didn't have the reference on hand to show you where Dr. Pande said that QRB for GPUs was in the plan, but, now that I am home from work and have time to look it up, here it is (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19042&p=190618#p190618).

And then, the other point I am proving is? That Dr. Pande gave plenty of notice that this was in the plans?