Did you inform EAIF in advance of your intent to publish this? There are sometimes good reasons to dispense with the default norm of running critical posts by orgs, but I am not seeing any of them present on the face of this post.
That’s a fair position. To me, the advantages of prior notification still seem in play here. Quoting from Jeff’s post:
This allows the org to prepare a response if they want, which they can post right when your posts goes out, usually as a comment. It’s very common that there are important additional details that you don’t have as someone outside the org, and it’s good for people to be able to review those details alongside your post. If you don’t give the org a heads up they need to choose between:
Scrambling to respond as soon as possible, including working on weekends or after hours and potentially dropping other commitments, or
Accepting that with a late reply many people will see your post, some will downgrade their view of the org, and most will never see the follow-up.
Given the simplicity of the complaint, I would not think more than 2-3 days notice would be warranted, although I would suggest an extension to ~1 week if the org could identify specific workload commitments that made it difficult for the org to prepare a timely response to the Forum post.
I do think the simplicity of the complaint also helps in the other direction as well though—I would guess that it was fairly unburdensome to respond in this case. Though I will say that there were certain aspects of the post that already flagged to me that we were getting a skewed view (eg the pausing of clients seeming premature), so maybe that makes me unduly unconcerned about others absorbing an unbalanced view.
Though re you point about making an extension due to workload, I’d be strongly against that in this case as the whole complaint is around disorganisation and frustrating extensions of deadlines—that is the case where someone least owes an org flexibility, and I think it would reflect rather poorly on an org to request it in that situation.
Quite apart from the courtesy (and the OP apparently feels like he hasn’t been treated with courtesy himself), this seems like an obvious case for communicating to an organisation that you’re upset because you feel that you’ve been misled about timelines [and are considering publicising your complaint] before going public because, despite the delays, they may actually be quite close to awarding you significant sums of money...
(I’m not sure what was promised, but this sounds like exactly the sort of thing I’d expect to always take longer than expected)
That sounds upsetting.
Did you inform EAIF in advance of your intent to publish this? There are sometimes good reasons to dispense with the default norm of running critical posts by orgs, but I am not seeing any of them present on the face of this post.
I don’t know how I feel about applying that standard in this case, given that lack of communication is the thing at issue
That’s a fair position. To me, the advantages of prior notification still seem in play here. Quoting from Jeff’s post:
Given the simplicity of the complaint, I would not think more than 2-3 days notice would be warranted, although I would suggest an extension to ~1 week if the org could identify specific workload commitments that made it difficult for the org to prepare a timely response to the Forum post.
I do think the simplicity of the complaint also helps in the other direction as well though—I would guess that it was fairly unburdensome to respond in this case. Though I will say that there were certain aspects of the post that already flagged to me that we were getting a skewed view (eg the pausing of clients seeming premature), so maybe that makes me unduly unconcerned about others absorbing an unbalanced view.
Though re you point about making an extension due to workload, I’d be strongly against that in this case as the whole complaint is around disorganisation and frustrating extensions of deadlines—that is the case where someone least owes an org flexibility, and I think it would reflect rather poorly on an org to request it in that situation.
Quite apart from the courtesy (and the OP apparently feels like he hasn’t been treated with courtesy himself), this seems like an obvious case for communicating to an organisation that you’re upset because you feel that you’ve been misled about timelines [and are considering publicising your complaint] before going public because, despite the delays, they may actually be quite close to awarding you significant sums of money...
(I’m not sure what was promised, but this sounds like exactly the sort of thing I’d expect to always take longer than expected)