5 ms·

> 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 competenc

> 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.
    - michael_j_x 4y ago
      If an IT department of a major organization has both the time and motivation to construct and publicize such a document, that speaks volumes of the incentive structure and cooperate priorities of their organization. The fact that they released such document in the public domain without first running it from the PR department speaks volumes to their incompetence. This was not some random internal IT document. This was an official, public Stanford policy, advertised as part of a specific PR strategy.
      - ehvatum 4y ago
        If you saw a chart of Stanford administrative overhead growth, you would be aghast. All these useless busybody administrators sucking down $100k+/yr compete for visibility in order to grow their compensation and hire yet even more of their dipshit buddies. They are a cancer. Learning, teaching, and researching are entirely beside the point. Demonstrate moral superiority and hire your friends if you want to stick around. This insular, spiraling, incenstuous dynamic produces artifacts that are tremendously embarrassing and discrediting when exposed to the outside world.

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.
  - michael_j_x 4y ago
    If an IT department of a major organization has both the time and motivation to construct and publicize such a document, that speaks volumes of the incentive structure and cooperate priorities of their organization. The fact that they released such document in the public domain without first running it from the PR department speaks volumes to their incompetence. This was not some random internal IT document. This was an official, public Stanford policy, advertised as part of a specific PR strategy.
    - ehvatum 4y ago
      If you saw a chart of Stanford administrative overhead growth, you would be aghast. All these useless busybody administrators sucking down $100k+/yr compete for visibility in order to grow their compensation and hire yet even more of their dipshit buddies. They are a cancer. Learning, teaching, and researching are entirely beside the point. Demonstrate moral superiority and hire your friends if you want to stick around. This insular, spiraling, incenstuous dynamic produces artifacts that are tremendously embarrassing and discrediting when exposed to the outside world.