[Sigia-l] Anyone suggest a better global list?

[Skot Nelson]

Well said Susan. (I *did* read I through to the end.)

--
Skot Nelson

skot at penguinstorm.com

twitter. penguinstorm

On 2011-01-03, at 15:24, Susan Doran <susandoran at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> hi 
> 
> Figured I'd chime in too re: experience w/this list.
> 
> I have subscribed on and off for many years.
> 
> The last stint was 2006-2008.  And I just rejoined in Dec 2010.  I've gotten my juice elsewhere.
> 
> So--Ziya was a pain in the ass. Flooding the Box with responses to every single post. High-handed, arrogant, insulting, long-winded (I'm often guilty of the latter).
> 
> Ziya was a "bully"---in terms of how much space s/he took up, presumed authority, ham-handed bull-in-a-china-shop disrespectful approach, unwillingness to listen or "connect" with other people---a deafening know-it-all bullhorn---and sheer exhausting volume.  I wrote to ASIS about stepping in at that time because Ziya unchecked would likely undermine the community. ASIS didn't take steps---understandably, they had every right to make a choice about whether to intervene.  
> 
> I have studied collaborative leadership and decision-making---and have run and convened more than a dozen community projects of varying size and complexity (not online). And it's a known phenomenon, and one I've witnessed many times, when a particularly loud, large, needy, or aggressive presence is allowed to dominate, that one presence will, in fact, drive out some of the most talented and interested original members. Because it's no longer fruitful or fulfilling to participate.  It's no longer a community of equals. 
> 
> The way around it (in the non-online world, at least) is to have robust process agreements the group comes up with and and signs off on, and if someone is transgressing the group's agreements, eventually they can't participate.
> 
> There were other posters (some posting to this thread) who also were obnoxious, snarky, insulting, dismissive, unnecessarily combative, and basically not looking to the long-term health and well-being of the community through their participation.  Meaning, treating this list as a platform for intense divisiveness rather than cultivating a cohesive community with varying opinions and approaches.  There's everything right with passion for our professions. But what went on here seemed to be a lot about constructing hierarchy, animosty, and dominance---which was radically at odds with what many of us, at that time, were actually espousing in terms of new paradigms that we aimed to reflect in our design work.
> 
> I know I'm not a dum-dum (or is it dumb-dumb :). And I know some of what I have to say has validity. But when you're in a list situation (particularly, at that time, when there's a growing sense of celebrity posters, who I personally didn't see as celebrities but as people who were smart and usually nice/fun to talk to conferences---but at that time there was a new and increasing sense developing of reverential/deferential | leader/follower), and your posts are mostly ignored because you're not a name....that's also kind of a drag.  This is simply part of what happens in many new professions, particularly drawing unprecedented media attention, like ours was.  Unless the leaders of the profession are committed to doing a bit of steering and shaping.  
> 
> 2005-2008 was an era where our profession (or set of allied professions) was coming into its own and self-defining, in earnest. The numbers swelled exponentially. It would have taken a huge amount of work to retain the sense of informality and openness that had marked our professions/community. And people and consulting firms were making lots of money being Experts owning The Answers.  I did well too---tho I'm disinclined to say I have The Answer, and instead I have "an answer."  That's just my personality. 
> 
> I've witnessed this institutionalizing phenomenon several times in my lifetime, so it's not surprising, but a bit disappointing because it disallows ambiguity in favor of grounding, codifying, and concretizing--squelching some creativity and innovation.
> 
> Further, newer people join in---which is wonderful!---however, their motivations for coming aboard or joining the profession will, in some cases, be very different from the earlier adopters. Many of them may be seeking a lack of equivocality, rather than open-seeking. They're looking for rules and Answers that have already been vetted and approved so they can just do the work, and get to the money part---nothing wrong with that at ALL.  But it's a far more pragmatic draw to the profession than one about pioneering, discovery, exploration, and invention.  Not saying the objectives are mutually exclusive.  But these are the sifts that occur in most lifecycles.
> 
> As a result, there were several, sometimes separate, objectives and agendas for contributors/members of this list.  Among them---(1) collaborative peer-to-peer learning and (2) jockeying for "name," authority, and self-branding.  The two don't always coexist comfortably with each other.  The condition of "not-knowing" (and/or being extremely open to learning) becomes, for the #2 group, a weakness or a handicap.  And whereas earlier on open inquiry didn't imply idiocy, increasingly around 2006-08 some people here would react high-handedly and patronizingly---thumping down an unequivocal Right Answer, rather than exploring myriad possibilities.  Makes sense, when people are predicating the efficacy of their brand/business on immutable facts and approaches. For the rest of us, it may better suit us [and be far more interesting] to be radically open, and to keep our learning extremely fluid.
> 
> As happens with any emerging institutionalizing profession the breadth of what's "right" narrows. The people who have worked to be identified with what is Right have followers who quote them, as evidence that's what's "right," and new and different ideas and approaches---unless you've established "name" (which is usually the bastion of people comfortable with self-promotion---nothing wrong with that, but in the early parts of our professions' formation many voices contributed more or less on equal footing, and people engaged in dialogue were aware and discerning enough to know when an idea held merit or was interesting, regardless of the "name").
> 
> There were, and are, of course, people who were defining paradigms and brands and businesses who were extremely gracious and acted as great community members---and who always did keep and HAVE kept an open mind about learning.  
> 
> Also, IxDA (can't speak to this list) has withered on the vine, in my opinion, because it is hyper-focused on the tactical.  That may be useful at times, but there's little intellectual juice there.  
> 
> As for there being one skillset -- nah.   And why should there be?  the most gain I see there is for employers who need 2-3 people but want to shell out $$ for one instead.  Information architecture spans from the UI layer and the interaction and flows that play out there---down to the geeked out basement, under the hood, where the metadata lives.  In the past 2 years I've seen so many cool designs that talented smart interaction designers have come up with, that presuppose that the data/info that their design is intended to present, mix, match, serve up--and make associations among the many facets of users are, and the facets of the info/data, to create an extremely compelling experience--will somehow just magically do that.....what needs to happen to enable that, isn't interesting to them.  It's someone else's problem (maybe "tech" - and the answer is no: it's IA). Which is totally FINE, in my opinion.  Because the same person who is coming up with the specific visual trea!
> tment and interaction does not need to be the person who is looking at complex association and relationships of information and users.  The two work together.
> 
> Sorry for the long post :-(   It almost ensures its being relegated to obscurity!
> 
> I'm glad this list is still here -- thanks, Richards.  Glad I got to vent about why I left, nigh on those years ago---i.e., it became hostile, not collegial.
> 
> all best
> Susan
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Susan Doran
> 521 Central Ave Apt 3
> San Francisco CA 94117
> 202-296-4849
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
>                         
> ------------
> 2011  IA Summit
> March 30 - April 3, 2011
> Pre Conference Seminars: March 30-31
> IA Summit: April 1-3
> Hyatt Regency Convention Center
> Denver, CO 
> -----
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
> 
> Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l