They have had ample time to listen and learn way before this campaign started which they had a reason to ignore for the “violent” measures taken – communications and transparency have been asked for at least for more than a year now, by various people and in much more softer way, but this has been largely ignored.

So far, in my opinion, they have not shown many signs of a) wanting or b) being able to do either learning or striving. On the contrary, with every wish for openness the more cover they seem to seek. I guess it would be fair to say they are driven by fear (of what, I can’t understand – unless of course there’s something of gigantic proportions that needs to be hidden, which wouldn’t surprise me anymore after seeing the extreme measures taken to keep everyone in the dark)

They don’t have to do these jobs, there are plenty of capable (and experienced) volunteers ready to pick up the work… for free. Casey, Jim and Matthew are not marters by a long shot, they have concentrated all of the power within the CS organisation around them. Plus, they have had plenty of time to learn, but haven’t been listening to the warnings for almost a year now.

They are indeed human and are definitely entitled to make mistakes, sure. But if you don’t correct your actions, are they still mistakes?

Cmon, If CS wasn’t there neither would these threads.

Casey and the Org he leads can do what he wishes within the envelope of law. (and maybe more)

Whats the upside of these jobs today ? Constant pressure and complaints. survival pay. Life as a near homeless person.

In fairness, I believe a tiny small minority of CS community leadership or misunderstanding prompted these voices.

I am sure this is only the first of contra sites and blogs.

Everyone has a bone to pick sometimes as I may, but its more from frustration over silence and inaction over a long period of time.

I don’t really feel so today, we are fortunate to have good people like Casey and Jim. They are learning like everyone else. Give them time and they will improve and strive to do so.

They are human, they make mistakes, forget things. Choose to hide sometimes. Try to post how to make effective change, some will sink in.

1. “Most trusted” in a trust-based system may sound like an oxymoron but the fact is human nature dictates that we trust some more than others. It does make sense to be protective over something you care so much about. As long as in the process you don’t become its antithesis.

2. Selecting “ideologically similar” individuals sounds good in theory – less conflict, less bereaucracy, less deviation from the mission. However, diversity of opinion is important for gaining insight, paradigm shifts, challenging false truths and promoting inter-cultural understanding.

Great analysis of the situation. Although I agree with the “party hardy” perception, I don’t have any facts that help back that up… it’s just a perception.

In some discussions I’ve had with some unnamed higher lvl people, I think the “distrust” is not really “distrust”, but that they want stability in the system. This is something I can understand when limiting access to the core running system (production data, that is). And I can empathize with that position, even though I won’t sympathize with it.

But, I don’t like the general vibe coming from the LT that anyone OCS related (or expressing OCS views) have an “Agenda”… I got the hint that some LT think that the OCS related “Agenda” is “anarchistic” and “far left”.

In fact, everyone that participates has an agenda… agendas in the non-negative connotative way. I have an agenda that I want to use CS to grow social bonds. Is this bad? Others have an agenda to work towards a distributed free ideal of CS to protect against corruption that inevitably creeps into growing (large) organizations. Is this bad? Now, bad agendas are ones that are destructive… like destroying CS. This is bad. I don’t think that anyone with OCS views is aiming for that, so I don’t buy the “Agenda” argument.

-Ben

His strategy of being silent (even though he ALWAYS checks the brainstorm group and also this site at times) has made him lose some of that trust.The new permanent staff and other admin have not being following the hands off policy casey started which has cause all the friction which was never there before as everyone was equal .

The org structure devised by hoffer has not contributed to couchsurfing but has take it a step back .

RESPECT like mikky says is the key for this project to go forward . (For once i agree with mikky )

The only way forward is for casey to take charge.Show the members that they are respected like they were before. Will that happen? You will never know ….