[AML] Perceptions about AML governance

I'd like to write about a somewhat wider issue that this current
situation raises.

Katherine Morris wrote:

>Marianne (and others),
>Thanks for expressing your concerns. You're conflating two issues
>into one, however. The AML board did not decide to move the
>discussion to another forum in order to charge people for using it.
>They (1) decided to move the discussion to a new forum and (2)
>discussed how this forum could benefit members.

[snip]

>Again, thanks for expressing your concerns. As a college student
>with a full load of classes and barely enough time for a part-time
>job, I empathize with your financial concerns. I would hate to see
>anyone feel like they've been "turned away" from the list because of
>money. That was absolutely not our intention.

The problem I see here is that regardless of INTENTIONS, the effect
has been to make a fundamental change--not merely changing the
location of a community, but kicking half or more of its members
out--without opening up the discussion to the members of that
community, and with only two days' notice.

I was thinking that perhaps there had been some prior notice that I
had somehow missed that only paying AML members would be able to take
part on the new discussion board. The comments by other AML-List
members makes it clear that if this was mentioned, it was only in an
oblique, not widely understood--or discussed--way.

I can understand the desire to make paying AML members feel that
they're getting a benefit from their membership. I doubt that it will
serve AML well (see my earlier email), but I can understand the
motivation.

Unfortunately, the way this was done casts the AML governing board
itself in a poor light. Was there any thought of raising this point
for discussion on AML-List itself--the group most affected by the
change? Was there any thought to discussing the possible change with
others who have contributed to AML-List in the past (i.e., Benson and
myself), and might have some thoughts on the issue?

I understand that these issues may have been debated extensively by
the governing board. I would have no way of knowing that, not being
on the board (or in a position to be, given my geography).
Unfortunately, it is cold comfort to know (or believe) that issues
have been discussed in a forum where I have no voice.

Lest this be seen as carping from those who are not the ones actually
doing the work, I would point out that at least three of those who
have expressed these concerns--myself, Ben Parkinson, and D. Michael
Martindale--have EACH dedicated hundreds of unpaid hours to AML.
While none of us is currently involved as a volunteer, we are part of
the pool of past and (potentially) future AML workers. We are part of
the organization's human capital. And at least two of us have
intimate knowledge of the particular issue under discussion: that is,
the running of AML-List.

I do not want to criticize those who have stepped up to the plate to
do the AML governance things that are needed right now. AML very
nearly died as an organization, and I am grateful to those who
prevented it from happening. But I have to say to the board members:
y'all are alienating a lot of us who would like to think of ourselves
as part of the AML community, both with regards to this decision
itself and in the way it has been announced. That's not smart
long-term thinking.

Jonathan Langford