5 ms·

Because it was just some clueless people in the IT department. Stanford doesn't have "language experts" on call to vet every bad idea from every department, nor

Because it was just some clueless people in the IT department. Stanford doesn't have "language experts" on call to vet every bad idea from every department, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to. Hard to believe people are still getting bent out of shape about this.

tivert 4y ago
> Because it was just some clueless people in the IT department. It speaks to a surprising lack of basic policy-making competence. > Stanford doesn't have "language experts" on call to vet every bad idea from every department, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to. I'm sure they have tenured English professors on campus. Apparently no one had the sense to walk across campus and run this by one. And even if it was impossible to vet this language policy with a "language experts," due to the lack of a some pre-existing bureaucratized process to do so, that doesn't excuse the fact that they apparently failed to use a dictionary and some common sense. > Hard to believe people are still getting bent out of shape about this. I'm not "bent out of shape," I'm laughing at their amusing display of incompetence.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > It speaks to a surprising lack of basic policy-making competence. Yes, a random subcommittee in the IT department does not have basic policy making competence. Okay, that's the story. > I'm sure they have tenured English professors on campus. Apparently no one had the sense to walk across campus and run this by one. Stanford-level English professors are not there to be copy editors for the IT department. Linguistics experts and English professors are there to be experts. Do we expect all departments to run their web pages past the CS professors for bugs? > that doesn't excuse the fact that they apparently failed to use a dictionary and some common sense. Sure, but that doesn't explain why anyone is still mad or surprised about it today, months later, when the whole issue has been explained and has been diffused. > I'm not "bent out of shape," I'm laughing at their amusing incompetence. Sorry, my bad.
  - tivert 4y ago
    >> It speaks to a surprising lack of basic policy-making competence. > Yes, a random subcommittee in the IT department does not have basic policy making competence. Okay, that's the story. I'm kind of surprised by your defensiveness about this. Pretty much all detailed policy is made by a "random subcommittee in the X department." They have to be competent or your whole organization looks stupid and may get justifiably mocked. If they're incompetent, the higher ups aren't doing a adequate job of monitoring them or are assigning them inappropriate tasks. > Stanford-level English professors are not there to be copy editors for the IT department. Linguistics experts and English professors are there to be experts. Do we expect all departments to run their web pages past the CS professors for bugs? I'd expect if someone stops by your office with a problem, you'd give them at least a few minutes of your time to help.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > I'm kind of surprised by your defensiveness about this. I'm not defending anything (I called them clueless!), I was stating the actual scope of what we're talking about. It's true that subcommittees compose the whole organization, but at the same time, what happened was that the whole organization was judged as if it were the small subcommittee. The rush to condemn Stanford as a whole is what I'm critiquing. > I'd expect if someone stops by your office with a problem, you'd give them at least a few minutes of your time to help. And when your day ends up filled with spell checking documents when you have a Ph.D. in English, maybe you might rethink that open door policy.
      - tivert 4y ago
        > I'm not defending anything (I called them clueless!), I was stating the actual scope of what we're talking about. It's true that subcommittees compose the whole organization, but at the same time, what happened was that the whole organization was judged as if it were the small subcommittee. You kinda are. You seem to be trying to shift blame to a scapegoat, which is a pretty common defense tactic. If you shoot someone, you can't claim you're innocent because it was only your finger that pulled the trigger. Obviously things are a little blurrier with organizations, but certainly not totally disconnected. >> I'd expect if someone stops by your office with a problem, you'd give them at least a few minutes of your time to help. > And when your day ends up filled with spell checking documents when you have a Ph.D. in English, maybe you might rethink that open door policy. That's an obvious mischaracterization of what they would have been asked to do, or what would have happened. People are usually pretty respectful of other people's time, especially in these kinds of situations.

tivert 4y ago

> Because it was just some clueless people in the IT department. It speaks to a surprising lack of basic policy-making competence. > Stanford doesn't have "language experts" on call to vet every bad idea from every department, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to. I'm sure they have tenured English professors on campus. Apparently no one had the sense to walk across campus and run this by one. And even if it was impossible to vet this language policy with a "language experts," due to the lack of a some pre-existing bureaucratized process to do so, that doesn't excuse the fact that they apparently failed to use a dictionary and some common sense. > Hard to believe people are still getting bent out of shape about this. I'm not "bent out of shape," I'm laughing at their amusing display of incompetence.

ModernMech 4y ago
> It speaks to a surprising lack of basic policy-making competence. Yes, a random subcommittee in the IT department does not have basic policy making competence. Okay, that's the story. > I'm sure they have tenured English professors on campus. Apparently no one had the sense to walk across campus and run this by one. Stanford-level English professors are not there to be copy editors for the IT department. Linguistics experts and English professors are there to be experts. Do we expect all departments to run their web pages past the CS professors for bugs? > that doesn't excuse the fact that they apparently failed to use a dictionary and some common sense. Sure, but that doesn't explain why anyone is still mad or surprised about it today, months later, when the whole issue has been explained and has been diffused. > I'm not "bent out of shape," I'm laughing at their amusing incompetence. Sorry, my bad.
- tivert 4y ago
  >> It speaks to a surprising lack of basic policy-making competence. > Yes, a random subcommittee in the IT department does not have basic policy making competence. Okay, that's the story. I'm kind of surprised by your defensiveness about this. Pretty much all detailed policy is made by a "random subcommittee in the X department." They have to be competent or your whole organization looks stupid and may get justifiably mocked. If they're incompetent, the higher ups aren't doing a adequate job of monitoring them or are assigning them inappropriate tasks. > Stanford-level English professors are not there to be copy editors for the IT department. Linguistics experts and English professors are there to be experts. Do we expect all departments to run their web pages past the CS professors for bugs? I'd expect if someone stops by your office with a problem, you'd give them at least a few minutes of your time to help.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > I'm kind of surprised by your defensiveness about this. I'm not defending anything (I called them clueless!), I was stating the actual scope of what we're talking about. It's true that subcommittees compose the whole organization, but at the same time, what happened was that the whole organization was judged as if it were the small subcommittee. The rush to condemn Stanford as a whole is what I'm critiquing. > I'd expect if someone stops by your office with a problem, you'd give them at least a few minutes of your time to help. And when your day ends up filled with spell checking documents when you have a Ph.D. in English, maybe you might rethink that open door policy.
    - tivert 4y ago
      > I'm not defending anything (I called them clueless!), I was stating the actual scope of what we're talking about. It's true that subcommittees compose the whole organization, but at the same time, what happened was that the whole organization was judged as if it were the small subcommittee. You kinda are. You seem to be trying to shift blame to a scapegoat, which is a pretty common defense tactic. If you shoot someone, you can't claim you're innocent because it was only your finger that pulled the trigger. Obviously things are a little blurrier with organizations, but certainly not totally disconnected. >> I'd expect if someone stops by your office with a problem, you'd give them at least a few minutes of your time to help. > And when your day ends up filled with spell checking documents when you have a Ph.D. in English, maybe you might rethink that open door policy. That's an obvious mischaracterization of what they would have been asked to do, or what would have happened. People are usually pretty respectful of other people's time, especially in these kinds of situations.