I think this might just be a misunderstanding because this is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. I agree with what you wrote above (your post not just that quote) if this were something that spoke on behalf of the entire Stan community and the SGB. This is an independent group that the SGB didn’t try to shut down, not an initiative that the SGB organized on behalf of the entire community (we are trying to do that in other ways, but this isn’t that). I agree they should make it clear.
Oh yeah I get that. In that case maybe the name and scope needs to change a bit? I don’t think funding can really be solicited without it being “on the behalf of Stan”.
Similarly all communication needs to be very clear that this is an independent group that has no affiliation with the Stan governing body or Stan and isn’t subject to any community standards other than those of the whole Stan community. Maybe the SGB and the committee organisers can agree to a boiler plate statement?
One of my goals is to make it easy to volunteer in the community, whether that’s curating specialized field guides like @vianeylb @LeoGrin and @bnicenboim have recently volunteered to do, or researching usage of Stan, or encouraging companies/institutions to donate to Stan, etc., like @ermeel @breckbaldwin @s.maskell and others want to do. In none of those cases would the volunteer speak on behalf of the entire Stan community.
I highly respect everyone who has commented on this thread but the resistance these volunteers are getting without first asking for clarification worries me. Even if things weren’t communicated clearly, for the benefit of this community I think it’s very important to assume good faith until we know otherwise. I didn’t write the initial communication in question, but the response it has received makes me concerned that people will be discouraged from organizing and volunteering themselves in the future because they will be criticized without the opportunity to clarify themselves if they don’t communicate something as clearly as they should have. I don’t think it’s fair to assume bad faith, which is how some of the responses in this thread come across. I really want to emphasize again that we should assume good faith here on the Stan forums and welcome volunteers into the Stan community.
I also can’t emphasize enough how much I respect everyone commenting here, so I hope you know my comments are in good faith and sincere.
I totally agree with you about the communication. That’s a great idea.
I think I disagree about the funding (though not entirely sure, maybe just terminology). Anyone can ask people to donate to Stan. For example, I encourage everyone who works at a company that profits from using Stan to encourage their company to consider donating to Stan. So asking to donate to Stan doesn’t imply speaking on behalf of Stan.
1 Like
I agree with this. I disagree that disagreeing with a proposal is interacting with it in bad faith.
(edit to remove inexplicable stray noun)
That’s not what I was saying. It was the style
of the criticism. Many of the points are great but nobody acted excited to have volunteers at all, it was entirely negative tone instead of good faith suggestions. I don’t mean that you have to act all excited, but the mood of this entire thread is not super welcoming to potential volunteers for the Stan project.
I also do not agree that this is acting in bad faith. The only reason that I said more than that the solicitation was badly done is that you misunderstood my comment.
Also the proposal is written by Breck who is a former member (and ED) of the SGB and works Columbia in a Stan-associated position. He is not a volunteer in any meaningful sense.
In this case he is a volunteer from the perspective of the current SGB with which his role at Columbia gives him zero official standing (same goes for you and everyone else previously on it). He’s not the only one involved in this nor the sole author of the proposal, just the one who posted it.
In that case I continue to misinterpret the tone and I apologize, it just really comes across that way to me. I trust you though, so I accept that I’m misinterpreting it.
We are progressing to the “dude you have my phone number” stage of this. And if someone else has a problem with what I have said in public they are welcome to contact me. But in this case I said the most succinct and polite version of what I believe, which is that this is, as it is proposed and as it has so far been executed, a bad idea.
I am also a big fan of folks volunteering (absolutely love the new user communities!!!). I also mean no disrespect to the people who volunteered this specific proposal - I hope they know that! I think their post has gotten a little sidetracked from what they are doing to a broader question.
That said, I think this particular proposal has raised concerns because it appears to be directed by the SGB. I’m looking at this and the clarifications I received and I don’t know what it could possible mean other than the SGB is creating and monitoring this committee
I think it’s okay to raise a concern about this direction by the SGB (and again, this has literally nothing to do with the original volunteers). I think the other volunteer groups have been clearly separate (like the field guides) or clearly created by the SGB (like the CoC committee that I am on).
1 Like
Haha indeed. And no hard feelings at all.
And maybe you’re right it’s a bad idea, I don’t know, but I don’t think it in any way crosses a line into something that needs to be forbidden. I think that’s overstepping the authority of the SGB. With some of the ideas from you and others here here there are definitely good improvements to make and I hope it ends up going better than you expect and surprising you! If not I don’t think you or anyone else here will be much worse off.
@lauren I corrected the record in my posts. I don’t think the initial text communicated the intent clearly enough. This isn’t being created by the SGB, we’re just not trying to shut it down and letting them solicit volunteers on the forum just like anyone else in the world can do. I can see how the initial communication was misleading, but I tried to correct it in my clarifications above many times.
I’ll reiterate it again here: this is not a committee created by the SGB. This is an independent group that the SGB knows about. It does not speak on behalf of the entire Stan community or the SGB, only the people volunteering. It clearly came across otherwise, but we can ask the people proposing this to change the wording to make all of this much much clearer.
it still says that though.
The last post on how the group members are selected is the clarification from Breck above. Afterwards you note that other folks are welcome to make committees and that they are volunteers and independent but I can’t see any clarification on how they are selected.
Is the text I quoted wrong? How are committee members selected and will the SGB be involved?
(again this has literally nothing to do with the volunteers or volunteering - it’s question on procedure)
1 Like
This is all happening too fast. We’re all just volunteers here, the SGB members included. We’ll ask for changes from the people organizing this and a new post that’s much clearer. We can even delete this one if you want. I feel a bit under siege here, especially since you both know me and know I have good intentions.
You’re under siege, I’m only working in bad faith, Lauren is trying to work out what is real. What a great Wednesday night.
1 Like
I did clarify that anyone can volunteer. Nobody is “selecting“ anyone. If that’s how it was phrased that was confusing, I agree.
The procedure is that it’s not the SGB’s job to prevent this sort of thing unless we think what they propose should be forbidden. As far as I know we don’t have more authority than that unless we are creating the entity ourselves (which is not the case here but should have been emphasized clearly in the initial post as I clarified).
We also ask that volunteers solicit feedback on what they’re planning so that people who think it’s a bad idea or a good idea but can be improved can share that feedback. In this case it should have been made more clear that nothing was not set in stone and that suggestions for improvement were encouraged.
Again, I agree with pretty much all the suggestions here. I just wish the conversation had more positive tone.
I’m going to stop replying because I believe this thread has become unproductive, and @jonah you have indicated that you are feeling overwhelmed by the conversation.
Take care everyone!
2 Likes