âafter reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our responseâ.
A couple other points in response:
âIf 24 hours was sufficient for our volunteers, we believed it would be fair for Sinergia as well.â feels like a false equivalency. They have many other pressing priorities, and responding to your criticisms takes time and probably knowledge of multiple programmes, which might take time to coordinate.
Some of your email communications came across as pretty hostile (or at least low-trust), and some were friendly and collaborative. I think this might explain some of the differences in how people respond to you. For example, the email before the call where you asked for written consent from all participants seemed like a very low-trust and (if you were already inclined to think that way, as someone who had received critique may be) hostile move. When journalists (who are a good model here) write articles, they often allow interviews âon backgroundâ (i.e. interviews where they can use the context they learn, but not name or quote the source). Iâd personally recommend that in a case like thisâotherwise the interviewee wonât be able to speak freely/â correct themselves etc⊠in fear of being taken out of context. I think youâll get a better response from organisations if you adopted more of a vibe of âtrust but verifyâ rather than the current position, which seems to begin by assuming bad faith (whether you actually do or not, this is the vibe).
[edited because I published with half a sentence at the end] Also, wanted to add that again, Iâm very glad that youâre responding to the opinions of others on this, and giving Sinergia more time to respond. Thanks again for being open to changing your mind.
âafter reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our responseâ.
Weâre a bit confused, because the quoted statement â âafter reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our responseâ â does not request anything from us. It simply says Sinergia will do something.
Youâre taking their wording too literally. You wrote asking them if 24hr was enough notice, and this response was Sinergia asking if they could instead tell you how long theyâd need after reviewing the draft. You donât have to accept that â you could say youâre not willing to hold off on publishing for more than a week or something â but when you didnât respond to it Sinergia was right to expect that you wouldnât drop a draft on them with 24hr notice before publication.
The assumption is that since you are asking for their response, itâs in their court to tell you how long a response would take. Maybe thatâs wrong, and you didnât mind whether or not they had time to send you a response, but thatâs the implication of their email.
The assumption is that since you are asking for their response, itâs in their court to tell you how long a response would take.
We think there is a misunderstanding. We never asked Sinergia for a response to our article. We simply told Sinergia we would send them our article before publication.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, I took this email as saying that you were sending them the post before posting in order for them to review, and clarify anything that needs clarifying (I also understand this as the point of sending the article for their review anyway- doesnât seem like there is much point if they donât have time to respond?)
Maybe I am misunderstanding, I took this email as saying that you were sending them the post before posting in order for them to review, and clarify anything that needs clarifying
The clarifications refers to the 3 clarifying questions we sent (referenced in Email 7):
We didnât include this image in the list of emails before, but weâve added it now. Sorry for the confusion!
Hereâs the request youâre looking for:
âafter reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our responseâ.
A couple other points in response:
âIf 24 hours was sufficient for our volunteers, we believed it would be fair for Sinergia as well.â feels like a false equivalency. They have many other pressing priorities, and responding to your criticisms takes time and probably knowledge of multiple programmes, which might take time to coordinate.
Some of your email communications came across as pretty hostile (or at least low-trust), and some were friendly and collaborative. I think this might explain some of the differences in how people respond to you. For example, the email before the call where you asked for written consent from all participants seemed like a very low-trust and (if you were already inclined to think that way, as someone who had received critique may be) hostile move. When journalists (who are a good model here) write articles, they often allow interviews âon backgroundâ (i.e. interviews where they can use the context they learn, but not name or quote the source). Iâd personally recommend that in a case like thisâotherwise the interviewee wonât be able to speak freely/â correct themselves etc⊠in fear of being taken out of context. I think youâll get a better response from organisations if you adopted more of a vibe of âtrust but verifyâ rather than the current position, which seems to begin by assuming bad faith (whether you actually do or not, this is the vibe).
[edited because I published with half a sentence at the end] Also, wanted to add that again, Iâm very glad that youâre responding to the opinions of others on this, and giving Sinergia more time to respond. Thanks again for being open to changing your mind.
Hi Toby, thank you for your reply.
Weâre a bit confused, because the quoted statement â âafter reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our responseâ â does not request anything from us. It simply says Sinergia will do something.
Youâre taking their wording too literally. You wrote asking them if 24hr was enough notice, and this response was Sinergia asking if they could instead tell you how long theyâd need after reviewing the draft. You donât have to accept that â you could say youâre not willing to hold off on publishing for more than a week or something â but when you didnât respond to it Sinergia was right to expect that you wouldnât drop a draft on them with 24hr notice before publication.
The assumption is that since you are asking for their response, itâs in their court to tell you how long a response would take. Maybe thatâs wrong, and you didnât mind whether or not they had time to send you a response, but thatâs the implication of their email.
We think there is a misunderstanding. We never asked Sinergia for a response to our article. We simply told Sinergia we would send them our article before publication.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, I took this email as saying that you were sending them the post before posting in order for them to review, and clarify anything that needs clarifying (I also understand this as the point of sending the article for their review anyway- doesnât seem like there is much point if they donât have time to respond?)
The clarifications refers to the 3 clarifying questions we sent (referenced in Email 7):
We didnât include this image in the list of emails before, but weâve added it now. Sorry for the confusion!