I was fortunate that my daughter had a school concert this evening. It allowed me time to compose my emotions before composing this post.
By now most people following #stcorg on Twitter have heard about the delay I and one other inadvertently caused the rollout of MySTC. I completely and sincerely apologize for causing this. There was nothing sinister behind it. In fact, it was quite the opposite. I was excited to finally see MySTC live.
When STC posted the announcement of the delay, I felt obligated to step forward as one of the two involved. I hadn’t realized I’d done anything wrong, and I knew that STC and people following me on Twitter likely saw my excited posts on Twitter that day. I had reservations about logging in as the url did say staging, but since it was publicly available I figured why not at least try logging in. Amazingly enough, my own STC credentials logged me right in. At that point excitement took over and I started to browse around.
Now I want to be perfectly clear that the only area I tinkered in was my own member profile. I added information about myself, toggled a RSS and Twitter feed on, and uploaded a photo. I did not tear through the site, I did no form of hacking. I was merely looking at and adding info to my own member profile page. I was using it as intended.
After updating my profile, I left the site and went on with my day. By today I’d actually forgotten all about it. I had a busy day ahead and my attention was focused elsewhere. But, because I use GetSatisfaction to log and track issues, questions and ideas about STC’s web site, I received an email notification of a new comment on an item I’m following. This one. I followed the link, saw that no one had yet responded offering a status but another member was asking, so I posted a tweet asking for an update. The STC Board of Directors – or is if Hillary Hart herself, I can’t tell since the Twitter profile uses both identities – responded with a snark.
I actually was stumped by this. I thought maybe I forgot an email update or something and went looking, and then I thought it might have to do with an Office employee’s new family edition. Whatever the case, the snark hit me wrong and I did eventually give in to sarcasm. My bad, but I still had no idea what the Board/Hillary was talking about.
And then the announcement was posted to STC.org and the Twitterverse grabbed onto it.
I did have questions about logging in. I tweeted as much. But given the site was live and public, I gave it a shot. If it wasn’t live, I wouldn’t have gotten in. I did get in, as myself, and it looked operational.
I’ll admit to visiting the site. It was live. I’ll admit to logging in. It allowed me to using my own member login credentials. I’ll admit I updated my member profile. It was my profile.
I apologize that doing so disrupted a test. I intended no harm. I was merely curious and excited. After all, I’d been awaiting something like this since 2009 when the STC Forum was shut down, and eagerly awaiting this since 2010 when it was formally announced at the Summit.
What I have issue with is the treatment of this accidental disruption. The announcement says I was an unauthorized member on the site. If so, I wouldn’t have been able to log in. My STC credentials were, in fact, authorized. Of course, STC knew this by their own admission: “these individuals were able to use their existing credentials to enter”. What we didn’t know was that this live and operational site was being tested.
The announcement also stated, “These individuals also broadcast the URL of this website on Twitter”. That, as written, is a lie. I never once posted the URL for the web site. You can check my Twitter time line. I don’t scrub it.
The announcement continued, “which compromised the security of our controlled environment”. Now, if it was a controlled environment, would any of this ever have happened? Again, no malice was intended on my part, merely curiosity. And again, because I was free to log in as myself with my existing credentials, I didn’t think anything of it.
I am sorry that additional time and expenses are required to finish testing because of something I did, but I had no idea I did anything disruptive and I really shouldn’t have been able to do anything at all if the site was actually secure. If outside consultants were involved in setting this up, they should be admitting to their fault in setting up an uncontrolled environment for testing purposes.
Now, what really bothers me is that from the time I logged in to the time I received the snarky post from the Board/Hillary and to the time the announcement was published, not one STC Office or Board member contacted me about this issue. They obviously knew who the “unauthorized members” were, yet to my knowledge they didn’t reach out to either of us. Instead they chose a direct passive-aggressive approach using the voice of the Board of Directors.
I may be vocal, I may be assertive, and I may not hold my tongue as often as I should, but I know when to eat crow. I’ve done it many times, publicly. I also have continued to offer assistance and service to STC. I’ve managed a SIG for the past several years (currently in transition to a new SIG Manager for fresh energy and ideas), have worked on several committees and task forces, served as a judge in local competitions, and I’m even currently investigating social media platform options for the 2011 Summit after being asked by STC to do so.
As vocal as I’ve been, I’ve always worked in support of STC. I may publicly tweet dismay about decisions being made or actions being taken or not taken, but it’s because I care. Or, cared.
Today’s events have made it clear in my mind what has been nagging at me for a few years now. You see, while I see solid value in a central organization promoting and furthering the theory and practice of technical communication, I am convinced that STC is no longer fit to carry that banner. The organization is far more dysfunctional than I ever imagined. Many factors lead me to this realization, but the current situation rings the message loud and clear. It’s the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.
I’ll be wrapping up my current duties in the next few weeks, and after that I’ll be focusing on more fruitful endeavors in techcomm. It’s been an interesting 8 years with STC, and I’ve made some great friends along the way, but it’s obvious that it’s time to move on.
{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
If I treated a customer like that, I would lose that customer’s business. What makes Mothership STC think some of the various chapters and SIGs can’t find another way to exist without having to put up with the Mothership?
Bill,
I’m sorry for the despicable way you’ve been treated by STC, and not just for this incident. You’ve been a vocal cheerleader for the organization and reached out many times to help make it better, only to be ignored, lied to, or patted on the head and told not to worry, that everything would be just fine. I was kind of hoping you’d consider running for office next year. You’d have my vote. However, after this mistreatment, I can’t say I blame you for bailing. Even though we’ve never met and we don’t always agree, I’ve hoped that one day I can buy you a beer and shake your hand.
Mike, I’d like that very much. Thanks.
Bill, I’m grateful for all your efforts, and I hope you receive the apology you deserve. It’s ironic that this situation was precipitated by a failure in technology and a failure in communication by an organization whose mission is to advance the arts and sciences of technical communication. But then, I always say that STC members are a tough audience, because our standards are so high. I hope STC will recognize their error and seek to rectify the harm they’ve done. A few days’ lost development time is nothing compared to the loss of your customers’ goodwill.
Or maybe not. Maybe there are so few of us left who have big dreams for this organization, who are working to build vibrant communities, that we’re no longer relevant. As long as there are checkbook members willing to keep writing those checks, the organization will survive. And people who speak out, who seek something more, may be viewed as troublemakers.
I truly believe that the STC staff and board are good, hard-working people who are doing their best. A lapse of judgment from time to time is to be expected, especially when people are frustrated. But the tone of that press release was quite unfortunate. I prefer to believe that the tone was unintentional. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I’m having trouble doing so in this case, and that disturbs me.
Bill, you’ve been a vocal and enthusiastic voice for the future of STC. People like you are the reason why I chose to renew my membership this year. I have been holding out hope that the organization might decide to look forward instead of backward, but that’s clearly not the case.
That said, the passive-agrressive tweet from @STCBOD the explanation on the webpage are utterly appalling. For people who specialize in technology and communication, the organization seems to be inept at both. When sharing this story with a friend, he responded with, “You mean they typed in their current login and password? How nefarious.” Indeed.
The organization’s behavior is an embarrassment. I unfollow people on Twitter and unfriend them on Facebook for their passive-aggressive nonsense. Why on earth am I still affiliated with this organization?
Anybody know if there’s any recourse for quitting STC and getting my money back for Summit and membership? Because frankly, I don’t get anything out of it and have had quite enough.
I would like to clarify something that you may be overlooking about the Board’s response, which is the Board can’t respond individually unless authorized to do so. This isn’t STC policy as such, this is general corporate law covering what’s appropriate behavior for Board members. Hillary Hart, as President, is empowered by right of her position to speak unilaterally, but individual Board members don’t have that privilege. Individual Board members almost certainly do have their own opinions, but one of their responsibilities is to support the will of the Board, which in this case has been expressed by Hillary. It’s frustrating at times, but it’s a general requirement of Board members regardless of the corporation.
Just wanted to clarify that part of it.
Thanks for the clarification John, but it really doesn’t change anything. Besides, it wasn’t STC President or Hillary Hart tweeting, but @STCBOD. And the announcement wasn’t signed, so again it was the One Voice speaking.
It’s an odd situation, and even odder considering I allowed Hillary the opportunity to clarify and correct a statement detrimental to STC’s 501(c)(3) status just last week on Notebook.
I can’t say I am surprised, but I can say that I am sad to see you leave the STC.
No, not because I am a member, sad to see another leave. I’ve already come to the conclusion you just did and have quit giving the STC too much for too little in return already.
I’m sad because you were, far more than the STC itself, giving me hope. You are passionate, vocal, and you advocate the ideals that I wish the STC had.
I hoped you were the squeaky wheel that would get some grease.
Unfortunately the STC’s behavior today showed they would prefer to treat you like the nail that sticks up and hammer you down.
For what it’s worth, try to take it all with a grain of salt. This all went down in a very short amount of time. Folks on Twitter are working fast and loose at the speed of chat whereas the STC is as distant and as out of touch as a vaulted ceiling. Their post was WAY out of line, but their lack of response time to near instant fallout isn’t a shocker.
Disappointing to be sure, but no surprise.
It might not change things for those who were watching the STC bite the hands that feed them today, but maybe they’ll post a retraction in the next few days, weeks, or months. Those coming late to the (by then archived) drama down the road will be able to read a thoughtful and apologetic response from the STC that corrects their current inaccuracies.
Then again, given their continued inability to demonstrate their proficiency in communication (and tech) maybe not.
Hi Bill,
Sorry you were treated this way. I have to say that in this one sad instance, I am years ahead of you. After working with STC for almost 10 years (in this case, STC-Israel) as editor, secretary, convention coordinator, vp and finally acting president), I was disgusted by the way I was treated, the in-fighting and worst of all, the way my chapter specifically and international members in general were being treated. Dysfunctional doesn’t even begin to describe what is happening and at some point, the technical communicator became less relevant to the organization and the organization itself became critical.
I stepped out and have, for the last 5 years, coordinated the only viable alternative to STC in Israel – we have an amazingly active email list with over 2,000 people, we have a national convention with at or above 200 attendees, and there are many local groups picking up the extras.
In short, though it may be hard for you to imagine it at this point, there is life after and without STC. It is sad that this is so, but the organization lost so much in my eyes over the last few years. As I was leaving STC, I asked, genuinely and honestly, why I should renew and stay a part. Instead of real answers, I was attacked…insulted…and demeaned. It solidified my determination to leave and I firmly believe the Israeli technical writing community is better for it.
A few months later, the STC reversed the controversial decision that triggered my leaving. Recently, I heard they reinstated this absurdity to get themselves more money. Last I heard, STC membership in Israel was less than half what it was when I was on the Administrative Council…and falling fast. The only people who really join in Israel now are people who have employers willing to pay for their membership.
Sorry you were hurt; sorry that STC lived up to its worst potential.
Paula
You mean you saw a link *and* clicked on it? How presumptuous of you!
I’m sorry you were treated like that because of someone else’s mistake.
I’m not a member of the STC, am 2,000 miles away and have only your blog to go on, but IMHO the disruption caused to My STC trumps any hurt caused to you.
Unfortunately, everyone loses. The STC loses a clearly motivated and intelligent Technical Writer wanting to promote the profession. You lose participation with, for good and ill, the de facto community in the USA for the career path you’ve chosen. Hopefully, at some stage in the future, you and STC will be in a state where you’re happy to be a STC member again.
Re: “Folks on Twitter are working fast and loose at the speed of chat.”
It would seem to me, an outsider to this entire endeavor, that “folks” in the field of technical communications would be the most acutely aware of the negative implications of “working fast and loose at the speed of chat.” That is, communication should be first and foremost in what one does. While I can understand that the idea of 140 characters might constrain what was said, it should in no way ever constrain what you communitate. Sometimes, what you communicate is what you haven’t said.
On the nature of sarcasm, especially with regard to developing a public voice online, I have found it helpful to use a consistent set of delimiters for faux statements. [[Yeah, right.]]. While this will not necessarily obviate all instances parsing what was said in the appropriate context in real-time, my experience is that it has consistently permitted a faster and more accurate resolution to things I have said, sometimes even “at the speed of chat.”
Speaking of what wasn’t said: Bill, I hope that you regard my absence of direct comment here as my discomfort as an outsider to respond to a situation for which I’m likely not fully formed. However, in the decades I’ve known you, I cannot recall any instance for which you’ve compromised your high character for the purposes of saving face.
For what it is worth, Bill, I have been trying to log in with my usual ID and password and have been unsuccessful. I know my ID is correct because I keep back issues of Intercom, I would have no idea what my member number is without that. And when I tried to get my password sent to me or to reset my password, both operations failed. SO here I am WANTING to renew, being a member since 1994, and I can’t log in. They show me my member information OK, but they can’t seem to get me an email so I can change my password.
As you say, STC seems inept at the communication and the technology.
Where are we to go for leadership in our profession then, techcommdude?
Bill…. what can I say….
Your dedication, insight, and enthusiasm will be sorely missed. STC.org will be a lesser organization without your involvement.
-R
#thetweetthatkilledthestcorgwebsite
For what it’s worth, your enthusiasm for the STC is what made me think that letting my membership expire was a mistake. In my mind, you were the best thing about that organization. I’m sorry this was the final straw for you, but it’s their loss, not yours.
This is such a shame Bill, you have been such an asset to STC. I find this inexcusable and completely unprofessional. Wherever you apply your efforts and passion next will be much more deserving. I’m sure a few of us at Global View would be proud to buy you a beer in the near future!
You’ve heard my take on things many times, so I won’t rehash all that here. Suffice it to say that while you were in there fighting the good fight, there was a chance that STC would get their act together and attract some of us back into the fold. Now? Oh well.
Good luck, and you could probably travel the country soused, given all the free beers people would buy you along the way!
This really shouldn’t bother me at all, because I’m no longer an STC member, but in fact this incident has upset me deeply. (People who remember the circumstances under which I resigned my STC membership may understand why I am upset by this.)
No-one deserves this sort of aggravation in their life, especially not from a professional association of which they are a member and for which they have been a tireless and hard-working volunteer over many years.
Terrible to see the STC flaming out like this.
Oh, dear. It seems to me that there are several mistakes made here, not the least of which is Bill shouldn’t have been able to log in with current credentials to a test site. But I totally understand why he did it. I think I would have done the same had I known.
That said, an email or phone call to Bill would have been nice. I completely understand that everyone is busy but posting an non-accusation accusation in twitter as a way to open the conversation was not the best.
Bill, you have really made a difference in STC these last years. I very much hate to see you go because we need someone who speaks his mind about the issues and is actively engaged. And the beer – we also need the beer.
Is there any hope of keeping you engaged? Or have you reached that point?
Bill,
As you know, I have been following this situation for quite some, and honestly, I can’t tell if it was good that I bailed on the STC years ago or fought as valiantly as you have.
Regardless, I hope the STC reads this and understand one simple point. There site was live, they failed to maintain a secure testing environment and their project failed as a result. This has NOTHING to do with you, but speaks volumes to their testing procedures.
Makes me wonder about the other areas of their business, which we know is failing dramatically.
Keep at it Bill, you have served your community well.
Matt
Bill,
It really upsets me to see people shot down for their enthuisasm and treated with malice where none was intended, or indeed, before confirming whether malice even existed.
I’ve been on the receiving end more times than I care to count and I’m always left feeling beaten up and bitter.
It sounds to me that’s where you are and I’m so sorry for that. I do hope that all heads involved will cool down and be able to re-examine this situation with the greater good in mind. Until then, sending you virtual chocolate. It always makes me feel better.
There is a long line of good, contributing, technical communicators who have been pushed away from the STC by the STC itself. This incident seems infrequent, but not unusual for the STC; nobody should be surprised.
Bill, you know, you’ve stood up for the STC, tried to provoke change, contribute to the betterment of the organization and technical communication overall. You have acted with dignity, honesty, courtesy, and intelligent, experienced professionalism.
The STC is less because of this.
If I were the STC, I would be working very hard to try and undo the harm they caused here and retain you as a contributing member. Very hard.
Cheers,
Sean
Your departure is a serious loss to STC. As for me, I know where to find you.
Bill — I am sorry that you are planning to leave STC. And I do want to apologize for my snarky comment. It was all mine. Here’s what happened.
I had just learned yesterday about what looked like a “break-in” to the website the day before. I had just seen your “should we be in here?” tweets, and suddenly you tweeted a demand to know the status of the MYSYC development. To my mind, that looked like a really bad joke on your part, abnd I responded quickly and thoughtlessly (twitter certainly encourages that). Forgive me for thinking that you would intentionally do anything to delay the website’s development.
I would have reached out to you sooner, but have been helping my husband prepare for a six-week bike ride (recumbant trike, actually) to N. Dakota (that he is doing solo!!!). I am worried.
I hope you will reconsider your decision to leave STC.
best,
Hillary
Every time I think about rejoining STC, something like this slaps some sense into me. Sorry, Bill.
As an outsider to STC, all I see is dysfunction and drama. I have seen nothing that makes me think I’m missing anything of substance or value. Pity.
I bailed from STC, and they can’t even successfully unsubscribe me from their email system.
Bill, I resigned my STC membership about 5 years ago because I was accused of something I did NOT do and the Board wouldn’t back me up. I will say that I have not once regretted my decision, nor have I found myself lacking in anything that STC might provide. My career is fully on track and I stay current in the field in other ways that are much more meaningful.
Honestly, this is not the first time STC (as an organization) has disenfranchised members, and it will not be the last. STC (as an organization) has yet to learn and/or understand that it is the members that makes the organization what it could be. Blatantly accusing members who have/had worked hard for the organization (whether in public or private) is counter-intuitive to maintaining membership rolls.
Sorry you had to learn the hard way, Bill. But remember, you’ve got a very loose organization of very smart people out in the virtual world who are willing to assist, when needed, educate, when asked, and support without being asked! You don’t need STC. STC needed YOU!!
Hillary,
Your minimalist apology to Bill is, IMHO, too little and too late. We all make errors in judgment but how we deal with them reveals much about our character. Were I in your position, I’d reach out to Bill with a telephone call with an apology.
One critical thing you left out was a public retraction of the public blame that was laid on Bill and Rick for delaying the rollout and costing STC money. The fault was that of the developers and STC should publicly acknowledge that, absolve Bill and Rick of any wrongdoing whatsoever, and further demand that the developers accept responsibility for this fustercluck.
STC should not have to incur additional expense because the developers screwed up. STC should also demand that the (to the best of my knowledge) anonymous developers publicly admit their mistake and apologize to STC, its members, Bill, and Rick.
Let me just point out, Mike, that the message on the STC website did not publicly blame Bill and Rick for anything.
Bill,
My two cents’.
This sounds like a bad miscommunication. Not being an STC member, I can’t comment on your decision but this incident does give me another niggling question about membership. The only question then becomes whether there is any hope of improvement in the organization? If the answer to that question is yes, then leaving the organization may be an error.
I, for one, would like to be made aware of any trade association efforts you pursue in the future. I did not renew my STC membership this year as I’m out of work and cannot afford the fees. I need an association of some sort to stay current and try to find work, but I never felt I got back from STC what I put into it ($).
Thanks for your honesty and openness.
Hillary,
So because the message on the STC website didn’t mention their names, they weren’t publicly blamed then, eh? Your public tweet to Bill didn’t point a finger at him? I still say Bill and Rick deserve public apologies (to both of them by name) on the STC website from both STC and the developers.
I’d prefer this comment thread not turn into an argument. I appreciate everyone’s thoughts and sentiments, and I appreciate Hillary’s response here (though it doesn’t speak to the issues at hand). I do think that Mike and others make some excellent points though that this was a development/testing flaw and not an intrusion. Hell, I’ve been waiting anxiously for this platform. The last thing I wanted to do was delay it further. I think that if 3rd party developers/testers are being used, they should be held accountable for a poorly executed test environment. The site was NOT a controlled environment if I could log in with my existing STC credentials. STC should not incur any additional costs due to their error in testbed deployment.
And yes, the announcement on stc.org did not name me specifically, however anyone who is at all remotely involved with STC and uses social media would have and in fact had figured it out rather quickly. To be 100% honest, I only found out about the announcement because someone contacted me privately and asked me if the announcement had anything to do with @STCBOD’s Twitter response to me, and asked if I was one of the two people cited in the announcement. So, while the announcement left the names out, it really wasn’t a secret, which is in part why I fessed up as quickly as I did to being one of the two “unauthorized members”. (The other reason I fessed up so quickly was to let everyone know that my actions were by no means sinister and that any harm done was purely accidental.)
As the co-”intruder,” I too want to assure everyone that it was *never* my intention to “…cost the Society additional expenses and delays, including lost testing time and staff and developer hours analyzing and rectifying the situation.”
I was a bit “put off” by the tone of the notice, however… and I’m not the only person to comment its tone. I’d find the entire situation hilarious, if it weren’t for the fact that I/we have been waiting 2+ years for the new website.
As to why the conversation is being played out on this thread… did anyone else find it odd that the STC update was posted on the website (which does NOT allow comments) instead of the Notebook blog (which DOES allow comments, like all the prior updates)?
I’m not (yet) at Bill’s point-of-no-return… but it is coming up quickly.
#thetweetthatkilledthestcwebsite
Hillary, thank you for your candor. We’re all entitled to a bad day now and then. I’ve seen your commitment to improving the organization, and I trust your leadership through this difficult transition.
There is a deeper issue that has yet to be addressed. STC is (in theory) a PROFESSIONAL society. Professionalism is among the society’s ethical principles – see http://www.stc.org/about-stc/the-profession-all-about-technical-communication/ethical-principles for the full list. In my opinion, professionalism should be any professional society’s first principle rather than its last; but that’s only my opinion.
What has been lacking through this entire debacle has been a show of professionalism on the part of the society and its representatives.
Karen,
I agree with your post. This does not exhibit professionalism.
The “miscreants” have been cast as the villains in much of the dialogue. However, my embarrassment is from the response posted publicly by STC.
I’m concerned that anyone at the Society would post such a heated response to the “intrusions.” Does anyone preview the content that’s posted or did someone act rashly? (The response looks like a draft from someone writing a letter to express his or her frustration. That’s usually the draft that gets thrown away while a more reasoned approach prevails.)
I don’t understand why there was a public response from STC to start with regarding the “intrusion”, much less why it had the tone it did.
I don’t understand why there was no communication beforehand about the activity being performed in the staging site and that it should not be disrupted.
I don’t understand why Google was allowed to index the staging area.
Personally, I would prefer that this be discussed here rather than in the twitterverse. It’s hard enough to read intent in electronic communications. It’s harder in Twitter.
Hillary, I appreciate you contributing to this discussion. (It might be good to have a additional private Twitter handle rather than one that appears to represent the entire board.)
I’m grateful that I can turn my focus to the Spectrum11 Conference we’re hosting in two days. However, I must admit that I’m looking forward to some conversations with our BOD attendees.
Hi Ben. Some thoughts on your “don’t understand” points.
I don’t understand why there was a public response from STC to start with regarding the “intrusion”, much less why it had the tone it did.
It was likely due to my tweet pointing back to the month-old thread on GetSatisfaction about wanting a schedule or status update.
I don’t understand why there was no communication beforehand about the activity being performed in the staging site and that it should not be disrupted.
This is what I’d been asking for over the past month – a schedule or status update. If something was published, let’s say to Notebook, saying “we’re now testing MySTC on a staging server. If you happen to stumble upon it, please do not attempt to use it as it will disrupt our efforts and prolong the live release date” then this likely wouldn’t have happened.
I don’t understand why Google was allowed to index the staging area.
Well, that speaks to the technological heart of the matter. Testing was being performed on a live, public, open, visible, unsecured, spiderable web environment. This is what many in the trade call “a no-no”.
I, too, was disappointed with the no-comments-allowed, heated response on the STC site. For the record, I was also disappointed with the tone of Rick’s post. Nor is it inconceivable to me that the dev team would be disappointed to not receive a heads-up or a question about whether it was ok to proceed with entering data on the new site. I could totally see myself accidentally doing that, but I wouldn’t be shocked to get an unpleasant reaction as a result.
I’ve seen it mentioned during this discussion that people think STC’s manner of handling this is part of a larger communication problem. I know people have done this before, but maybe this is another chance to make some specific, actionable requests of the board to address that problem.
society: i’d think being “social” is a prerequisite; replying in the manner specified to an honest interest wouldn’t seem a disqualifier.
technical: making a website public while you test it and then being surprised that someone logged in the … live site… would seem also a disqualifier.
communication: … must i?
Can anyone explain to me what could have possibly been so ‘damaged’ that it caused interminable delays to this web site?
Umm, I mean, why not expose the project to STC members, many of whom are superb HTML experts. I’ve no doubt that the problem could be addressed easily.
And, if not, the senior project developer could merely roll back to a previous version in the source vault and re-upload the file. That should take less than sixty seconds to fix, no?
Unfortunate series of events, before, during and after. Shame about how these things can turn out.
Bill, whether you’re part of STC or not, your contributions will still be followed and appreciated. Thanks for all you’ve done. Good thing the web is here… all of us can still make connections.
David Brooks makes a good point in his new book. Our emotions are often more reliable than our logic. He suggests making decisions as follows:
1. Flip a coin to decide.
2. Examine your feelings about the decision.
3. If you’re happy, go with it. Otherwise, do the opposite.
I understand your reasons for wanting to leave, but unless thinking about doing so makes you happy, I think you should reconsider.
You’ve been an eager and enthusiastic member, and we’ll all feel it as a loss if you go.
@Richard: I’ve had years of issues with STC. Try as I might to do beneficial things, only a small handful of good has come out of them. Unless an initiative is 100% Board sanctioned and Board sustained over the life of the initiative (as a formal committee/task force) it is likely doomed to fail, and even with formal approval/support an initiative can suddenly halt due to silence as energy is redirected without the involved parties’ knowledge. Frankly, I’m tired of playing games.
Yes, I take ownership of my faults in this current situation, but when I see something live on the web that I’ve been eagerly awaiting and it welcomes me in with no hassle, I check it out. But the handling of the issue – and the excuses are not acceptable in this case as the One Voice of the Board was used – seems to fall back on the same old drama-infused model of Society vs Member.
I’ll say this: if STC can prove – not through message but through action – that it’s willing to make the dramatic changes that it so desperately needs to make and that have been begged for by members for years, and can prove that it is 100% focused on its core mission with heavy support toward and dependency upon member involvement to drive initiatives, that it’s willing to be the very model of clear, balanced, timely and prudent communication, then I’ll stick around. But without showing me that STC acknowledges its many severe faults and demonstrates consistently that it is actively working to correct these faults, then there’s really no point in my continuing on.
There are many other ways in which we can further the theory and practice of technical communication. STC is merely one. Yes, it is established as an organization, but holds no more clout in the world at large than any other fledgling initiative would. That in itself speaks volumes to STC dire need to change. You can’t succeed in initiatives beyond your immediate sphere of influence if no one knows or cares who you are.
I was talking about this whole thing to a friend yesterday and I can’t believe the consultant company:
* made a test site available from a public website
* allowed existing login credentials to work
I heard that this is going to cost STC money because the consulting company has to do something else now. Personally, I think the consulting company needs to eat that cost because they violated, um, nearly all Best Practices in testing. Think of this as a testing lesson for them and perhaps they will never make this mistake again.
I’m sorry this has all exploded but I swear, I would have done exactly what Bill and Rick did had I see the link. If it’s available on the public site and my credentials work, I would assume all is well in the world.
If one is testing, then one needs to follow Testing Best Practices, like not making the sandbox publically available, perhaps putting big red letters that say Test Site in the banner, or disabling existing credentials. Any one of those 3 things would have prevented this from happening.
And we would still have Bill contributing to the Society.
Considering that the consulting company is 2+ months behind schedule of the original release date of Jan 31 (http://notebook.stc.org/update-on-the-project-phoenix-plan-and-process/) I don’t see how the consulting company can be charging STC for anything additional at this point! Surely the contract called for some sort of financial penalty for being this far overdue (and with 100s of broken items, see http://getsatisfaction.com/sfortc/ ).
But then, I haven’t see a contract, a plan, or anything… and neither has anyone else (that I know of).
The frustration factor that I (and many others) feel is beyond the boiling point…
Bill,
I left STC more than two years ago, and while I keep in touch with local professionals, I know what you mean. But there is nothing stopping me from re-joining if STC can prove itself to be of value. Some of the local (Carolina Chapter) STC members half-jokingly refer to me as a litmus test – if they can get me to join again, then they know the organization has turned around. It hasn’t yet.
You certainly are generating more comments about your leaving than I did when I left, but maybe it will lead to more change in the organization. If they can’t keep the dedicated members such as you and me (I served as Carolina Chapter president in the 1990s, the first to serve two consecutive terms), they are definitely still doing something wrong.
And I would add that Bill Albing remains an important part of the STC Carolina community, and we’re happy to have him, member or not.
Next Comments →
{ 3 trackbacks }