On 02/17/11 10:16 AM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote: > On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote: >> If someone asks a question in a >> conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and >> expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience. > Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here. I have been to conferences > where questions have been asked publicly to a panel. If the question > seems too off topic for the general audience, or too specific for the > general audience, the panel member being questioned will generally defer > to answering the question after the main panel discussion is over. Then > the two get together and talk it out "off-panel" if you will. At least > in my discipline, I've not seen anyone get upset over it (I'm usually > grateful that it happened :) And oftentimes the asker is pleased as well > because it gives more time to get their question answered fully). If it > was a question I was also interested in, I'll go and talk to the > panelist/question asker myself as well. Or, if the audience disagrees, > someone else will chime up "Actually I'd like to know that too," or > "That's a valid question that maybe should be answered here." And it > goes into that forum. But usually, it stays off-panel. > I agree with whois on this point.
My first impression was that it was a thoroughly uninteresting question from government another trivial bureaucratic requirement. I relished the idea that this would be an easy thread to delete. The community on this list never takes kindly to being peremptorily told by one individual that an answer to a question asked on this list doesn't belong here. Other community members did effectively say "Actually I'd like to know that too." Trying to rationalize why it was taken off list only made matters worse. Absent an affirmative reason for keeping something like this off list there is a lot less heat generated by a direct answer that is as full as you can make it, or simply promising to look into the question. Most who then respond at all may even thank you as they get into a brief discussion of the substance. When they do that it is their discussion, and no longer your responsibility. Valid criticism restricts itself to the points at hand. It is done with a view to preventing the perceived problem from recurring should the occasion arise. It is not about some generalization about the way someone does her job when no facts are on the table about anything but one incident. Nor is it helpful if someone else perceives the discussion as extending beyond the bounds of valid criticism. Alluding to multiple unspecified instances of excessive criticism only turns up the heat without turning on the lights; it sounds more like the shrewish wife who can't let go of the one time a month ago when her lazy husband forgot to do the dishes. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
