11297Re: [MEFAwards] Re: a difficult decision, and a poll
- Jul 3, 2012Hello Ruth and everyone,
The poll actually was an attempt to offer a genuine choice, within the
confines of what Aranel, Elliska, Inkling, and I are willing to do. I'm
sorry it's not being perceived that way. The recent discussion on ratings
simply sapped my desire to help out with the MEFAs, and the other people I
mentioned in the announcement said they felt the same way. But we did feel
a sense of obligation to the people who like participating in the MEFAs
over the years, particularly since we'd already announced the 2012 awards
would be happening and many people had started looking for stories to
In light of that, and since the 2012 site was so close to being ready for
the competition, I wanted to at least offer people the chance to have one
last year - if people wanted it. If on the other hand the majority thought
the new policies were so bad it would be better not to run the awards at
all (or even if there was simply little interest in another year), I'd
respect that as well.
You suggest that we just go back to the 2011 ratings system. I'd have to
check with Aranel to be certain, but I'm fairly sure it's not so simple.
Different components of the website usually rely on each other, so I'd
imagine changing the way the site handles rating would mean not just using
old code but adapting new code so it only affects this particular area.
That's more work than I'm willing to ask her to do. It would also mean
going back through all the FAQs and changing them to reflect the change.
I've already done that editing task once this year and still have the
headaches to prove it *g* - I'm not keen to jump back in for a second
round. Most importantly, however, it puts us in the exact same spot we were
in 2011. That means if a situation like Esteliel's came along I'd have to
handle it the same way I did with hers. Judging from the comments posted
here over the last several days, no one wants that. But the only way to
avoid it is to get into the details of the ratings policy. And I'm *
definitely* not willing to do that for one more year.
It's not that you and the other people who dislike the content advisory
system don't have good ideas. As I said repeatedly, I was willing (even
eager) to discuss them with you all at one point. However, that was when I
expected to keep volunteering with the MEFAs for years to come. But, as I
said above, this discussion has sapped my desire to keep on helping out
with the MEFAs. The other people I mentioned above have told me they feel
the same way. I'm willing to put on the MEFAs for another year, if that's
what most people involved with them want. But that's really *all* I'm
willing to do.
I understand why the poll seems limiting. It's limited by that reality,
though. I'm trying to give people as much choice as I can, given the limits
of what those of us responsible for changing the site (Aranel), signing up
new people (Elliska), and pressing the on switch (me) are willing to do.
I'm sorry we can't be more flexible here.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:36 AM, surgeon_ruth <surgsteel@...> wrote:
> I first competed in the MEFAs in 2006, and you were my author liason,
> Marta - and it was a really fun experience. I respect what you've done to
> build the awards up.
> However, I won't be voting in your poll as you've chosen to present it.
> Speaking for myself, I felt that the new ratings system was a weall-meant
> mistake caused by not involving *all* the stakeholders in the discussion.
> The response to the group of us who chose to bring forward concerns made
> me, personally, feel that my opinion as an author and voter in the MEFAs
> was not valued. This 'poll' which doesn't really present much choice at
> all, confirms for me that decisions have already been made and that my
> opinion doesn't actually count for much.
> I'm sorry that this has become so stressful for you and sorry that you
> felt that you were personally attacked - as I said earlier, I respect what
> you've done to create the awards and hope you'll re-consider.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>