How much advance notice would be appropriate in an ordinary case?
I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I put my icon where I imagined 2 weeks would be. This is just an off-the-cuff stab at what a good rule of thumb might be.
More than 2 weeks feels like an onerous amount of time to wait to publish something.
2 weeks also seems like a reasonable amount of time for an organization to draft at least a short response. I don’t think we should expect organizations to write a detailed, comprehensive response to every piece of criticism they receive — either immediately or ever. (How much of a response feels warranted depends on how harsh the criticism is and how convincing it comes across.)
But 2 weeks is plenty of time to write a short reply of a few sentences or a few paragraphs, which can do a lot to defuse criticism if it’s convincing enough. For example, if you can point out a specific, provable error in the criticism that is actually important to the case it’s making (i.e., not just nitpicking). That might be enough to defuse the criticism as much as you care to defuse it, or it might be enough to convince people to withhold judgment while you take time to write a longer response.
But as I said, this is just my attempt to come up with a good rule of thumb, and, as with the other question, the real answer is “it depends”.
Agree that the appropriate amount of time depends—but I also think there needs to be some sort of semi-clear safe harbor here for critics here. Otherwise we are going to get excessively tied up in the meta debate of whether the critic gave the org enough advance notice.
I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I put my icon where I imagined 2 weeks would be. This is just an off-the-cuff stab at what a good rule of thumb might be.
More than 2 weeks feels like an onerous amount of time to wait to publish something.
2 weeks also seems like a reasonable amount of time for an organization to draft at least a short response. I don’t think we should expect organizations to write a detailed, comprehensive response to every piece of criticism they receive — either immediately or ever. (How much of a response feels warranted depends on how harsh the criticism is and how convincing it comes across.)
But 2 weeks is plenty of time to write a short reply of a few sentences or a few paragraphs, which can do a lot to defuse criticism if it’s convincing enough. For example, if you can point out a specific, provable error in the criticism that is actually important to the case it’s making (i.e., not just nitpicking). That might be enough to defuse the criticism as much as you care to defuse it, or it might be enough to convince people to withhold judgment while you take time to write a longer response.
But as I said, this is just my attempt to come up with a good rule of thumb, and, as with the other question, the real answer is “it depends”.
Agree that the appropriate amount of time depends—but I also think there needs to be some sort of semi-clear safe harbor here for critics here. Otherwise we are going to get excessively tied up in the meta debate of whether the critic gave the org enough advance notice.