Platform committee rep

Following up on my email yesterday, I would still like to be the platform committee rep.
I am on CA's state executive committee so I'm very passionate about state party business.
The Party should be more appreciative of the fact that someone is willing to step up and volunteer for something that only Starchild reluctantly agreed to do.
I promise to give a monthly report in advance of each LPSF meeting and consult LPSF members on what they want for the platform, because I represent the county.
I did not see a single report from Alan last year, so I didn't know the plan was to delete the platform and replace with national last year. I was on the executive committee of both the state and our county, and still didn't know about it. I voted against deletion.
My greatest concern with the committee is that with Starchild as our rep, work will not get done. I am willing to work with the other committee members.
I will NOT get involved with the platform committee unless I am appointed to the position, because I already have LP stuff to do (vice chairing in Manhattan, and I have many candidates running in 2020 that I personally recruited and have to support). I spent a lot of time talking on the phone to Starchild today, when I could have been helping my candidates.
LPSF did not put out any announcement they were looking for a platform committee rep, which goes against Starchild's own principles of adhering to transparency. The election of Starchild to the platform committee was completely un-transparent!
I urge the other party members to vote to remove Starchild, and replace him with me.
Sincerely,Rebecca

Mike and all,

  After seeing Rebecca's email (recopied below) asking for me to be removed as LPSF's representative on the state Platform Committee, I called her today to ask her why she'd like to be on the committee and discuss the issue.

  My use of the term "reluctantly" was in regard to my willingness to serve as LPSF chair. I haven't described myself as reluctant to volunteer in the capacity of Platform Committee rep. While I have also said, and continue to feel in the interests of having rotating leadership, that I would welcome someone else wanting to do it, there are indeed issues that I think it's important that are represented by whoever our representative is.

  Rebecca's request comes in the context of a couple major controversies concerning the Platform Committee:

1) Will we have a strong, detailed, California-specific state platform?

  As many of you may remember, last year's Platform Committee actually recommended to delete our state platform and replace it with the national Libertarian Party platform. A majority of delegates voting accepted this recommendation (although I am not aware that any of our San Francisco delegation did), and if deleting the whole platform en masse with a simple majority rather than plank by plank had not violated the state bylaws and been subsequently ruled out of order by the state Judicial Committee, we wouldn't have a state platform now. As a state LP affiliate, the national LP's platform is already our platform, at the national level. However I think it's also important for the Libertarian Party of California to have its own platform that addresses California-specific issues, as well as fleshing out positions on which the national platform has little or nothing to say.

  Rebecca says she voted against that deletion. During our phone call today – which for the record was 32 minutes, not what I'd call short but not terribly long either – she also sounded like she supports a detailed platform, saying that the document isn't meant to be read cover to cover.

  But I don't know how strongly she holds these views. She mentioned during our call having seen a short replacement platform proposed by John David Ward, and it sounded to me like she was citing it positively. (Ward was Platform Committee chair last year and was again appointed by the state Executive Committee this year, and spearheaded the attempt to delete the platform.)

  She also voted on the ExCom in favor of a resolution condemning the Judicial Committee decision noted above which saved the current platform (see June 16 email recopied at bottom).
  
2) Will we have a transparent state Platform Committee that welcomes member participation?

  During my brief time on the LPC Platform Committee so far this year, I have been actively engaged via email with other committee members. Some of you may have seen some of these messages which I copied to the LPSF-discuss list in the interests of transparency. And here I think Rebecca and I may have a real difference in outlook.

  The LPC Executive Committee – on which Rebecca remains an elected representative – just voted to eliminate the state email list on which all members could until a couple days ago post and participate. She voted along with the rest of the committee in favor of that deletion. As a result of this change, LPC members are no longer be able to read and respond to Executive Committee discussions on the same list, which makes communication more cumbersome. The elimination was prompted by complaints about incivility on the list, which was indeed rampant, but simply shutting down a particular communication forum does nothing to fundamentally address the issue of people being unpleasant and rude to each other, or the fundamental reasons for that conflict.

  I believe it is vital to maintaining ours as a bottom-up party run by its members, for LPC members to be able to see what members of the state party leadership are doing, and communicate with those representatives, and this includes members of LPC committees like the Bylaws and Platform committees and others listed on the state party's committee page (https://ca.lp.org/committees/). Right now that page lists an email address for each committee, messages sent to which are supposedly forwarded to all committee members. That's good as far as it goes, but my goal is for each committee to have a dedicated email list to which any Libertarian interested in participating in that committee's discussions or seeing what they are doing can subscribe (voting in committee would still be restricted to committee members).

  Rebecca and I talked about this during our phone call today, and she disagrees. Her view (please correct me Rebecca if I am in any way misstating it) is that only committee members should participate in committee discussions or be included in committee forums, and people should find out what's going on through their committee representatives, or seek appointment to the committees if they really want to be in the loop. The equivalent locally would be if, instead of having an Activist list on which only LPSF officers can cast official votes between meetings but all list subscribers can be part of the conversation, we had a special forum accessible only to LPSF officers, and anyone else wanting to know what the officers were talking about and voting on in that forum would either have to ask, or wait and read the minutes (which might or might not appear in a timely fashion and give a good sense of the conversation that transpired).

  While I agree it's good for committee members to publicly report on what their committees are doing, this doesn't always happen, nor is it practical for them to constantly report everything. Those who are interested in a particular subject area should be able to go and directly see for themselves what the committee charged with that subject matter is doing.

  The irony here is that I support non-members of the Platform Committee like Rebecca being allowed to directly view and participate in discussions, enabling her to be involved and have her voice heard even if she's not a committee member. But she has said she doesn't want to be involved unless she has a vote. Unfortunately, her views on the matter, if adopted – a likelier occurrence if she has a vote on the committee as our representative – would make it impossible for other non-committee-members to do so either.

  Some members of the Platform Committee also want to use the web platform Slack rather than communicate by email. I found out Slack does not function properly on my computer, and I expect this is true for some others as well, but that's only one issue with it. Email does not put all our eggs in a single company's basket the same way. Email lets you archive messages on your own device and look at them later offline. Since almost everyone has an email address and is familiar with email, there is less of a learning curve. And email boosts transparency, because email discussions can readily be forwarded to people not part of a particular email list; I don't think it's as easy to forward Slack messages to people who don't use Slack. Slack's app also has intrusive permissions demands, or at least did when I had a conversation with one of their reps back when I was trying to find out about a local YIMBY group's use of the platform, exactly 2 years ago as of tomorrow. (See correspondence below, which like the message from Rebecca I was able to readily preserve, find and access on my computer, thanks to email!)

  I am afraid that allowing Slack or other specialized web-based or app-based programs to replace email for official LPC committee business will exacerbate our party's transparency issues and create further barriers to participation and bottom-up governance.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

Thank you Rebecca….your offer is appreciated.
Starchild, can you please reply to Rebecca and indicate why you feel you should be platform committee rep? Are there issues you want represented? Perhaps it would be a relief to get some assistance from Rebecca?

Thoughts please.

Michael Denny

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

No On Prop A

sfpropa2018nov.blogspot.com

www.DennyForMayor.com

www.LPSF.org

(415) 608-0269

mike@Dennz.com

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 7:39 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com; LPSF Activist List <lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Platform committee rep

Following up on my email yesterday, I would still like to be the platform committee rep.

I am on CA's state executive committee so I'm very passionate about state party business.

The Party should be more appreciative of the fact that someone is willing to step up and volunteer for something that only Starchild reluctantly agreed to do.

I promise to give a monthly report in advance of each LPSF meeting and consult LPSF members on what they want for the platform, because I represent the county.

I did not see a single report from Alan last year, so I didn't know the plan was to delete the platform and replace with national last year. I was on the executive committee of both the state and our county, and still didn't know about it. I voted against deletion.

My greatest concern with the committee is that with Starchild as our rep, work will not get done. I am willing to work with the other committee members.

I will NOT get involved with the platform committee unless I am appointed to the position, because I already have LP stuff to do (vice chairing in Manhattan, and I have many candidates running in 2020 that I personally recruited and have to support). I spent a lot of time talking on the phone to Starchild today, when I could have been helping my candidates.

LPSF did not put out any announcement they were looking for a platform committee rep, which goes against Starchild's own principles of adhering to transparency. The election of Starchild to the platform committee was completely un-transparent!

I urge the other party members to vote to remove Starchild, and replace him with me.

Sincerely,

Rebecca

I would like Starchild removed as LPSF's platform committee rep, and have me seated in his place.

I will be at the convention.

Why? I think I would do a better job. I will commit to using Slack and attending their online meetings.

Sincerely,
Rebecca

Yes
Rebecca

I vote YES!
Thank you!

In Liberty,
K. Brent Olsen, Psy.D.
Give Chair
Libertarian Party of California

Greetings Fellow Libertarians:

On 15 Jun 2019, Vice Chair Kenneth Brent Olsen made the following motion:

"I would still like to move that the resolution being approved by numerous county organizations be posted on the Platform page along with the records of the Judicial Committee in this case and the Platform.", seconded by Northern Area Coordinator Brandon Nelson.

The resolution referenced above (to be posted, should the motion pass, on the Platform page of the LPC website, along with the records of the Judicial Committee related to their ruling on the deletion of the LPC Platform at the 2019 LPC convention) reads as follows:

" We, the undersigned county Executive Committees of the Libertarian
Party, hereby sign onto the following resolution:

Whereas, the Libertarian Party of California’s Judicial Committee has
ruled against a decision made by a quorum of delegates at the
Libertarian Party of California Convention in 2019,

Whereas, the Libertarian Party of California’s Judicial Committee has
callously ignored the will of the membership body of the Libertarian
Party of California,

Whereas, the Libertarian Party of California’s Judicial Committee has
been found to no longer represent the will of LPC members nor the best
interests of the Party,

We, the undersigned county Executive Committees of the Libertarian
Party hereby resolve to repudiate and refuse to recognize the decision
of the Libertarian Party of California’s Judicial Committee
overturning the deletion of the previous Libertarian Party of
California Platform.

Signed,

Libertarian Party of Fresno County, June 13, 2019
Libertarian Party of Kings County, June 14, 2019
Libertarian Party of Solano County, June 15, 2019 "

Voting starts at 8:17 a.m. on 16 Jun 2019 (today). If the motion has received a 2/3 majority (10 votes) of the Executive Committee in favor or opposed by 8:17 a.m. on 18 Jun 2019 (Tuesday), voting will end. If the motion has not received a 2/3 majority of the ExCom either in favor or opposed by that time, then voting will continue until 8:17 a.m. on 21 Jun 2019 (Friday) and the motion will pass with a simple majority.

Please note that Alternate At-Large votes will not count in the initial 48 hour period, however if a 2/3 majority is not reached in that time the Alternate At-Large votes will be counted if a corresponding At-Large member fails to vote at the end of the 120 hour voting period.

--
Paul K. Vallandigham, Secretary
Libertarian Party of California

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LPC-Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lpc-discussion-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lpc-discussion-group@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lpc-discussion-group/CAJx%2BcoCj1xMukVTfpsWU2ohKAZxc0eVJAEQ9hMh3iOoMcDrb%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

My conversation with a Slack customer service person, Jan. 24, 2018:

Karine (Slack)
Jan 24, 5:51 AM PST

Hey there,

Thanks for chatting in earlier and connecting with me.

There is a copy of our chat transcript here for your records.

Best wishes,

Karine

Starchild
Jan 24, 4:20 AM PST

Chat started: 2018-01-24 10:43 AM UTC

(10:43:07 AM) Starchild: Anyone here?
(10:43:12 AM) *** Karine joined the chat ***
(10:43:28 AM) Karine: Yes I'm here – how can I help?
(10:43:37 AM) Starchild: How do I read and post to SFYIMBY slack channels? Can't find them!
(10:44:00 AM) Karine: We got disconnected earlier — sorry about that!
(10:44:38 AM) Starchild: Well, you're here now, that's good. :slight_smile:
(10:45:14 AM) Karine: I am absolutely here :slight_smile: So if I understand correctly,
(10:45:44 AM) Karine: you are logged in your workspace (SFYIMBY) but you cannot find your channels?
(10:46:06 AM) Starchild: Yes. Where are they?
(10:47:13 AM) Karine: Could you try to hit cmd + k and type the name of one of the channel you have joined?
(10:48:04 AM) Starchild: I haven't joined a channel – I can't find them!
(10:48:48 AM) Karine: Ah I see! Not to worry — I am going to guide you through this!
(10:49:56 AM) Karine: So you can browse your workspace's channels by clicking the Channels section header in the left sidebar.
(10:50:33 AM) Karine: Here is a handy article that describes how to do this: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/205239967-Browse-and-join-channels
(10:52:15 AM) Starchild: Is this really so difficult that I need to read an article to figure it out? If Slack wants feedback, my feedback is that if people need to read an article to understand how to use the most basic feature, the site is designed badly!
(10:52:59 AM) Karine: I'm so sorry for the hassle here! I can see that it might be confusing for new users.
(10:53:25 AM) Karine: I'll be sure to share your feedback with the team here for future improvement.
(10:53:28 AM) Starchild: Can you tell me the direct URL for the page showing the SFYIMBY slack channels, and tell me in plain English in a few words, how to log in and find that page in the future?
(10:54:27 AM) Karine: Sure thing!
(10:55:26 AM) Karine: Here is your Slack workspace URL: https://sfyimby.slack.com/
(10:55:27 AM) Karine: Use `Cmd + D` to bookmark this link on Chrome
(10:56:38 AM) Karine: I don't know if you're aware but we have a dedicated Slack app for Mac?
(10:56:45 AM) Starchild: When I type in that URL, I am getting an error message:

" To keep using Slack, please upgrade your operating system

We are no longer supporting this operating system, so you’ll need to upgrade to at least OS X 10.9 to continue using Slack. We know this can be a pain, and we’re sorry for asking you to do it. You can learn more about why we no longer support some older operating systems in our FAQ.

As always, feel free to contact us if you have any questions."
(10:57:24 AM) Karine: Oh right I see — sorry about that!
(10:57:44 AM) Starchild: I am on a desktop computer, not a phone. I generally don't use apps, because they all want ambiguous "permissions" that appear to give them permission to spy on you and harvest your data.
(11:00:04 AM) Karine: I'm afraid that your OS is not supported, sadly.
(11:00:08 AM) Karine: We’ve narrowed down our set of supported browsers and operating systems so we can deliver a better experience in Slack.
(11:00:34 AM) Karine: When we spend extra time supporting a wider range of browsers and operating systems, as well as the older versions, we take time away from working on the features that make Slack better.
(11:00:37 AM) Karine: Despite the benefits, this wasn’t an easy decision for us. We know it’s disruptive to your work, and we’re very sorry about the hassle.
(11:00:49 AM) Karine: We are committed to security, and ensuring we aren't relying on outdated software is very important in protecting your data and information.
(11:01:54 AM) Starchild: So I cannot use even the basic feature of reading and posting to Slack channels?
(11:02:27 AM) Karine: Sorry, not from a computer running OS 10.6
(11:02:55 AM) Starchild: Never had this problem with email. Somehow it seems to work on all systems.
(11:03:38 AM) Karine: I'm really sorry — I wish we could show more flexibility.
(11:04:04 AM) Starchild: Thanks... Not your fault personally I presume, but yeah, I wish Slack would do that too.
(11:04:44 AM) Karine: I absolutely understand!
(11:05:00 AM) Karine: And I will be sure to voice your feedback!
(11:05:20 AM) Starchild: Seems like it kind of amounts to collaborating with the computer companies (e.g. Apple) that want to keep forcing you to buy new upgrades.
(11:06:24 AM) Starchild: OS 10.6 is what, only a few years old?
(11:07:08 AM) Starchild: Can it be set up so that the Slack channel messages for SFYIMBY re forwarded to my email address?
(11:09:44 AM) Karine: I'm afraid not. What we do with email notification is that we relay important information when you are directly mentioned in a channel or when you receive a direct message.
(11:10:11 AM) Karine: You can learn more about them here - https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/201649273-Configuring-email-notifications
However, you'd still need to initially access Slack from a supported device to configure them
(11:10:26 AM) Starchild: If they can do it for those messages, why not all?
(11:11:29 AM) Karine: You would need to access your workspace in order to set email notifications up.
(11:12:43 AM) Starchild: Presumably someone at Slack would have access to those notifications, to set them up for me if I told them what I wanted?
(11:13:35 AM) Karine: Notification preferences are set on an individual level.
(11:13:36 AM) Karine: My apologies for the bad news here — I wish I could help further with this.
(11:14:22 AM) Karine: Unfortunately, the only way for you to access Slack would be to upgrade the OS or try our mobile apps.
(11:14:55 AM) Starchild: I understand they're set on an individual level – I wouldn't want my preferences set for someone else, or vice-versa. But presumably someone at Slack who had the capability to access the site as it is set up could set my individual notification preferences for me.
(11:15:40 AM) Karine: I'm sorry to say that it's not possible.
(11:16:02 AM) Starchild: Not possible, or they just don't want to offer that level of support? :-/
(11:16:43 AM) Starchild: I don't want to read and post messages from my phone, but wouldn't mind using the phone once to set up notifications - if the app isn't demanding a bunch of permissions.
(11:19:48 AM) Karine: Are you using an iOS or Android?
(11:20:26 AM) Starchild: Android. Not that I really want to be, but it seems like Apple and Android are the only options.
(11:21:13 AM) Karine: You can download the mobile app from here: https://slack.com/downloads/android
(11:21:20 AM) Karine: Maybe give it a try?
(11:21:36 AM) Starchild: What "permissions" are demanded?
(11:22:39 AM) Karine: Can I ask what you mean by "permissions"?
(11:24:15 AM) Karine: On Android, we require `Contacts, Microphone, Storage & Telephone` permissions; however, you can manually configure and restrict access to these via `Settings > Apps > Slack > Permissions` on your Android device.
(11:24:20 AM) Starchild: When I've gone to download an app, I often get a message saying something like, "You will be giving App X permission to do the following: • post tweets for you • access your contacts • determine your location • send messages on your behalf • etc.
(11:26:28 AM) Starchild: If they want to make it more user-friendly and less invasive, I recommend letting people opt IN to those things, not require them to opt OUT. And explain exactly what each feature does, e.g. instead of just saying "Microphone", say "Slack will use your microphone ONLY under the following conditions: _____"
(11:27:09 AM) Starchild: I just don't see why any App should need access to the contacts in my phone.
(11:27:36 AM) Karine: That's fair feedback! In the case of mic access, this is to support our native calls service in Slack.
(11:27:48 AM) Karine: I can feed that back to our Android engineering team however, we can always do more to enrich our messaging.
(11:31:24 AM) Starchild: The problem seems to me akin to one I noticed years ago with VHS. At the beginning of a movie there would often be a message like, "This movie has been modified from its original form. It has been configured to fit your screen." That SOUNDS at first blush like the nature of the modification is that it has been adjusted to fit the screen, but that's not ACTUALLY what it says, if you read it like a lawyer (which is what you have to do, with all this corporate crap, because it's often very cleverly worded). It's actually giving you two totally separate statements, which may or may not relate to each other. The modifications may actually include other types of modifications totally unrelated to fitting the movie on your screen – they just don't tell you. And that's exactly the kind of problem I have with how App permission notifications are worded.
(11:34:53 AM) Starchild: They ought to be worded in such a way that there is no wiggle room for the App to access anything in your phone except in EXACTLY whatever particular circumstances are described to you in the permission request. E.g., "If, AND ONLY IF, you choose to make phone calls using Slack, the App will access the Microphone of your phone."
(11:36:34 AM) Starchild: "And it will access the Microphone only for that particular call, not for any other calls or any other purposes."
(11:36:56 AM) Starchild: Or something like that. It would need some work to communicate the meaning clearly and succinctly.
(11:37:03 AM) Karine: I hear you. More explicitly calling out the extent of our permissions would be useful.
(11:37:10 AM) Karine: Our team is really receptive to this kind of feedback so I'll be sure to forward it on.
(11:37:21 AM) Karine: In Slack's case, we take our customer's data and privacy concerns extremely seriously.
(11:37:34 AM) Karine: If you're curious, here's a breakdown of our security practices, which I include for your convenience - https://slack.com/security-practices.
(11:37:44 AM) Karine: That being said, I think you've raised some really good points around our wording and I'll be only too happy to share these.
(11:37:44 AM) Starchild: If you can get them to fix that, you'd be a personal hero of mine. :slight_smile: Like I said, most Apps do this, which is why I don't use them.
(11:38:17 AM) Karine: I'll absolutely pass it on!
(11:39:18 AM) Starchild: I think companies, and developers, find it convenient to leave themselves the wiggle room – but it comes potentially at the expense of all of our privacy and civil liberties. We as individuals won't know whether, or when, an App is spying on us, or harvesting our data, or taking actions on our behalf that we don't want it to. In most cases Apps probably aren't doing those things, but the legal language is worded in such a way that they COULD.
(11:41:45 AM) Starchild: And then the related problem is that if you know enough to know how to go in your phone and turn off permissions for an app after you've downloaded it, they don't tell you exactly what turning off a particular permission will do. The app might still work perfectly for everything you want it to do, or it might start working sub-optimally without you knowing, or without you realizing why it's not working properly.
(11:44:08 AM) Karine: I understand the frustration here.
(11:44:13 AM) Starchild: A better approach would be to let you download apps without giving ANY permissions, and then when you go to use the app in a certain way that requires access to something in your phone, have it ask you for only that narrowly-worded permission at that time. E.g., if you've downloaded Slack and try to make a phone call from the app, you'd get a message requesting permission to access the Microphone on your phone, preferably with an option to give access for just that call, or to give access for any future calls made through the app, so that you can either avoid it asking you again, or require it to get your permission each time.
(11:45:12 AM) Karine: That sounds fair and I can see where you're coming from.
(11:45:32 AM) Starchild: Thanks. It does kind of drive me crazy that more people are not up in arms about this stuff.
(11:46:03 AM) Starchild: I think people are accepting a lot of invasiveness in different forms now, which we all may later come to regret.
(11:47:10 AM) Starchild: Imagine, for instance, how a lot of these tools could be used in the hands of a relatively tech-savvy authoritarian regime.
(11:48:18 AM) Starchild: It's bad enough that companies are already building in "back doors" in their software and hardware for secret government access to our devices.
(11:49:16 AM) Starchild: Worse would be if they didn't even need a "back door", because the access was already built in.
(11:49:43 AM) Starchild: Or downloaded in by us, via apps.
(11:52:27 AM) Starchild: I suspect that Google has engineered their phones so that Google apps in the phone sometimes open by themselves. I've sometimes noticed stuff open, and been like, how the hell did I get here?
(11:52:47 AM) Starchild: Usually it seems to be some Google thing that has opened.
(11:53:02 AM) Karine: Thankfully, I think that at Slack, we're doing a good job at protecting our customers data.
(11:53:27 AM) Karine: But you have raised some really good point!
(11:53:46 AM) Starchild: I hope so, but of course every company's people will say something like that. No offense.
(11:53:59 AM) Karine: None taken!
(11:54:22 AM) Karine: Is there anything else I can help with today?
(11:56:36 AM) Starchild: There's a good book out there you might recommend to people in management called "The Cluetrain Manifesto" – online atCluetrain.com, I think. It's sort of an anti-marketing take on marketing, about stuff like letting customers and employees talk honestly with each other, not trying to have one "internal" conversation that's kept secret from customers/users, and another "external" conversation that involves basically trying to tell the customers or users only what they want them to hear.
(11:58:14 AM) Starchild: If a company had a truly transparent culture, there would be a lot less to worry about in terms of the apps and such. I'd be able for instance to talk directly to the "team" you mentioned earlier, and when you sent them an email with my comments, you'd copy me on the email so I'd be in the loop of the conversation.
(12:02:07 PM) Karine: I can assure you that all the feedback is reviewed and considered. In terms of copying you on the conversation, I'm afraid that's not possible but we do take your comments seriously.
(12:02:50 PM) Starchild: By "not possible" you mean "they don't want to do that, because they don't want you to be part of that conversation" - right? :slight_smile:
(12:03:32 PM) Starchild: These types of euphemisms and corporate communication language are the sorts of things that "The Cluetrain Manifesto" talks about.
(12:04:32 PM) Karine: Thanks for the recommendation — I'll be sure to check it out.
(12:07:21 PM) Starchild: The frustrating thing in situations like this is that you never really know whether the support person you're talking with (a) is deliberately dodging because s/he agrees with what the company is doing, (b) is accidentally dodging because s/he is so used to being on script that s/he has a hard time conversing outside of that, or (c) secretly agrees with you, but is afraid of losing her job or facing other consequences from higher-ups in the company if s/he openly acknowledges this agreement or goes off script. Or something like that...
(12:08:42 PM) Starchild: I just think it would be a better world for all of us, if in our interactions with big institutions, we could gain access to those internal conversations. Because unlike employees, customers/users have less to lose, and would be able to speak more freely in those conversations perhaps than lower-level employees can.
(12:09:18 PM) Starchild: Then I think we'd see companies, and institutions like government agencies, treating the public a lot better.
(12:10:58 PM) Starchild: Because someone would come in, and talk directly to the person in charge of programming the voicemail message that says, "Your call is very important to us. Please continue to hold", and just tell them off! And if enough people did that, the problem would get fixed, and we'd all get more respectful interactions. Companies wouldn't take 30 minutes of our time to save them 1 minute of their time.
(12:11:01 PM) Starchild: Et cetera.
(12:14:24 PM) Karine: Thanks for that. I understand where you are coming from and you have my word I'll pass your concerns onto the right people.
(12:15:00 PM) Karine: Thankfully, as an employee of Slack, I'm empowered to give an opinion on issues and be as honest as possible in helping our users navigate the product.
(12:15:04 PM) Starchild: Who shall remain nameless? :slight_smile:
(12:15:19 PM) Karine: Sadly, for issues that are beyond the remit of Slack, I'm probably not the best equipped to share strong opinions! But I do appreciate that you've taken the time to articulate your stance on Slack and the tech world as a whole. I hope I've been something of help today! If you've any other questions pertaining to Slack, shoot!
(12:16:57 PM) Starchild: Okay. Well, thanks for listening. That is something. If anything productive actually comes from this, beyond my level of access, or if my words sunk in any way that will make you or anyone else eventually reading this alter your view of the prevailing culture, and begin to operate in any way differently within that culture, I suppose that will be icing on the cake.
(12:17:05 PM) Starchild: Thank you for your help.
(12:17:30 PM) Karine: You're very welcome! Have a nice day!
(12:20:41 PM) *** Karine left the chat ***