FWIW, I my guess is that there would be more benefit to the social fabric if you went into (some of) the details of what you observed, instead of making relatively high level statements and asking people to put weight on them to the extent that they respect your reputation.
(Hearing object level details at least makes it easier for people to make up their minds. eg there might be various specific behaviors that you think were irresponsible that some readers would think were non-issues if they heard the details.
Further, sharing observations allows for specific points to be addressed and resolved. The alternative is an unanswerable miasma that hangs over the org forever. “Duncan, one of the people who used to work at CFAR, explicitly disendorsed the org, but wouldn’t give details.” is the kind of thing that people can gossip about for years, but it doesn’t add gears to people’s models, and there’s nothing that anyone can say that can address the latent objections, because they’re unstated.)
However, I also acknowledge that for things like this, there may be a bunch of private details that you are either reluctant to share or are not a liberty to share, and there might be other reasons beside, to say less.
But, insofar as you’re willing to make this much of a callout post, I guess it would be better to be as specific as possible, especially as regards “malpractice” that you observed at CFAR workshops.
I claim to be as-aware and as-sensitive-to of all of these considerations as you are. I think I am being as specific as possible, given constraints (many of which I wish were not there; I have a preference for speaking more clearly than I can here).
FWIW, I my guess is that there would be more benefit to the social fabric if you went into (some of) the details of what you observed, instead of making relatively high level statements and asking people to put weight on them to the extent that they respect your reputation.
(Hearing object level details at least makes it easier for people to make up their minds. eg there might be various specific behaviors that you think were irresponsible that some readers would think were non-issues if they heard the details.
Further, sharing observations allows for specific points to be addressed and resolved. The alternative is an unanswerable miasma that hangs over the org forever. “Duncan, one of the people who used to work at CFAR, explicitly disendorsed the org, but wouldn’t give details.” is the kind of thing that people can gossip about for years, but it doesn’t add gears to people’s models, and there’s nothing that anyone can say that can address the latent objections, because they’re unstated.)
However, I also acknowledge that for things like this, there may be a bunch of private details that you are either reluctant to share or are not a liberty to share, and there might be other reasons beside, to say less.
But, insofar as you’re willing to make this much of a callout post, I guess it would be better to be as specific as possible, especially as regards “malpractice” that you observed at CFAR workshops.
I claim to be as-aware and as-sensitive-to of all of these considerations as you are. I think I am being as specific as possible, given constraints (many of which I wish were not there; I have a preference for speaking more clearly than I can here).