The Great Tree

[Durin Mephit]

Blade,

I understand your perspective on this, but at the same time... the liaisons are our mouthpiece and our ears for interaction with the DRC... so the DRC holding a "private" meeting with the DRC liaisons is sort of like whispering into someone's ear, "Don't let the rest of your body in on this."

And putting that argument aside, it seems rather silly that the question of "Can the liaisons discuss this meeting publicly?" wasn't answered at the meeting itself. Pretty big oversight that, again when the DRC liaisons are supposed to be our mouthpiece and our ears.

But, please understand that in no way am I implying this is the liaisons' fault. I just want to make that clear. I understand the liaisons are receiving quite a bit of flak over at DRCsite for their "handling" of the DRC's public introduction of Cate... while that criticism is misdirected as the mix-up was largely the DRC's own fault.
_________________
Durin Mephit * Member of Guild of Messengers - Unless otherwise stated, opinions are mine only and not Guild endorsed.
rel.to | Marten KI: 59474 | Durin M KI: 11883768

[Eleri]

As I said elsewhere, if the Liaisons are supposed to be a free flow of information from the DRC to the Explorers, then it needs to work the other way, and we should be able to report to the the DRC everything the Liaisons hear.

If that's the case, then maybe the Great Tree needs to reevaluate if any of the Liaisons should actualy be members of TGT.

Unless of course, there's a double standard happening, and the explorers expect the DRC to spill all, without being willing to do the same.

I am a Liaison, not a mouthpeice, not a representative, not a banner waver for any group or person. I hear both sides, and I make my input to the other Liaisons based on what I feel works for EVERYONE.
_________________

[BladeLakem]

I really have to disagree with you on this, Marten.

Yes, the DRCLs are there to facilitate communication between both groups. But that doesn't mean that everything they do has to be 100% transparent. That doesn't mean that everything they do is the business of every explorer.

The DRC, the DRC members and the DRCLs have the right to privacy, just like anyone else. And I think they have the right to common courtesy, just like eveyone else. I think to expect the DRCLs to just publicize every word they have with the DRC is unreasonable.

Honestly, I think we as a community have become a little too obsessed with the DRC. We write down everything they say. We write down what their children say when they visit. Yes, they are important people in the restoration. But they are still people.
_________________
.yahvo kehnehn taigahntahv .taigahntahv bihv

Myst Embassy: http://www.mystembassy.net
Myst Headlines - http://news.mystembassy.net
MOULagain KI#27460

[Gadren]

The question of whether the meeting was for the DRCLs eyes only or not was not clarified because, by default, they are considered to be released to the public. It's not like we "clear" each and every meeting with them before releasing it.

So Cate and Marie both were speaking under the assumption that it was public. Sadly, due to some confusion (mainly about the use of the word "private" to mean both "private attendance" and "private dissemination"), the DRCLs had thought it was "for our eyes only" and waited until later to confirm this.

I really hope you don't read too much into this. We aren't some sneaky group trying to withhold information. And in this case, I don't think the DRC can be blamed -- in fact, they should be commended for assuming that the meetings are public and not encouraging us to "clear" each meeting with them.

[Durin Mephit]

[tkwiggins]

If I may add to this discussion as an outsider... with a caveat that what follows may seem to some as excessively harsh.

The problem is not with the liaisons. The problem has been and is with the DRC. From any analysis of management structure -- be it corporate, small workgroup, public relations, leadership, delegation of tasks, consistency of focus, internal organization or public communication -- the DRC is dysfunctional.

The DRC holds management power but fails to exercise even rudimentary management responsibility. Instead, it tasks those who have no power (the players) with creating a body of liaisons. Blatantly unresponsive to repeated calls to help define the liaisons' duties, and subsequently as much a failure at communicating with the liaisons as it was with the public at large, it squanders the enthusiasm, good will, communication abilities and organizational skills of the liaisons. By giving the liaisons no consistent, clearly visible public backing, the DRC inadvertently sets them up to take the public discontent that its own incompetence has fomented.

As management, the DRC is astonishingly inept. The notion that it is plotting or scheming to withhold information from the players is comical -- the DRC is far too disorganized to accomplish even basic management tasks (responding to email in a timely manner; showing up for a meeting on time; knowing what not to make public in its internal emails), much less plot sophisticated strategy.

How expert, dedicated or personable the members of the DRC may be as individuals is irrelevant; as a management structure the DRC has been and continues to be an unfocussed, unprofessional, unfortunate joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on all of us -- the liaisons especially.

As currently organized, the DRC is incompetent to deal with the expected mass influx of new explorers in the months and years to come.

Cate should immediately dissolve the group and start afresh with a new management structure.

[Durin Mephit]

[JohnLynch]