Hi Arrowind, I’m sorry you feel we’re trying to push things through! I did indeed ask the members in the member facebook group for feedback, and also people on the members mailing list. I’ve collated those responses, and they were around evenly split for and against. That was somewhat more positive than I would have expected, given as Jess said, that if people were against a change they would be more likely to put effort in to tell us. It was also interesting that various of the members were quite strongly in favour, not just accepting of the change. The responses did solidify in our minds that we should definitely keep the branding/vision/mission as it is now, and that we needed to approach the question of whether and how this would be done with a great deal of consideration and discussion. I’d be very happy to chat more with you about it if you’re interested—maybe via skype?
Thanks for the reply. That’s interesting that there was an even split, though an unrepresentative response is as you say an issue. That could cut either way though as as someone said in reply to Jess, members may feel uncomfortable disagreeing with a proposal. Unless you press a lot of members for answers, including ones who aren’t very into the online community, it’s hard to tell what they’re comfortable with as a whole.
I would feel somewhat better if the branding/vision/mission kept a focus on the case for giving some of our money to help those in extreme poverty. I may send an email about having a Skype, or at least an email exchange.
Hi Arrowind, I’m sorry you feel we’re trying to push things through! I did indeed ask the members in the member facebook group for feedback, and also people on the members mailing list. I’ve collated those responses, and they were around evenly split for and against. That was somewhat more positive than I would have expected, given as Jess said, that if people were against a change they would be more likely to put effort in to tell us. It was also interesting that various of the members were quite strongly in favour, not just accepting of the change. The responses did solidify in our minds that we should definitely keep the branding/vision/mission as it is now, and that we needed to approach the question of whether and how this would be done with a great deal of consideration and discussion.
I’d be very happy to chat more with you about it if you’re interested—maybe via skype?
Thanks for the reply. That’s interesting that there was an even split, though an unrepresentative response is as you say an issue. That could cut either way though as as someone said in reply to Jess, members may feel uncomfortable disagreeing with a proposal. Unless you press a lot of members for answers, including ones who aren’t very into the online community, it’s hard to tell what they’re comfortable with as a whole.
I would feel somewhat better if the branding/vision/mission kept a focus on the case for giving some of our money to help those in extreme poverty. I may send an email about having a Skype, or at least an email exchange.