Talk:Transparency

The CouchSurfing Wiki, an informal workspace which anyone can edit.

Anonymity?

Feedback to the above (below the core volunteers opening up section): suggestions and discussion are welcome in various CS groups where ambassadors and other "core" members occasionally do participate despite the claims above stating otherwise. Brainstorm, Quality vs. Quantity and most recent effort of CSC to open up - the various CSC outreach groups - are the most obvious choice for this. Anonymous views in this wiki and elsewhere are sort of hard to take into account as constructive criticism to build progress on. Transparency goes both ways. Anu 07:58, 10 February 2007 (EST)

To me information is information. I don't care about knowing who wrote it, I care about it's constructiveness. And this page is definitely growing into something very useful. Guaka^CS 08:30, 10 February 2007 (EST)

In reference to suggestions and discussing in various CS groups JOE_EDELMAN has a valid point on the global user participation in groups .

Very few of our users use groups. They join them, but they don't ever check them or post in them. They use them like badges on their profiles, not like forums. They never click the "Groups" button.--Sue20001sa 14:17, 10 February 2007 (EST)

It was meant more as a call to participate into making it better and getting in touch with the very people the original author was criticizing and build the networks they are referring to. As we've seen it's tough enough to have the "core" participate in the "important" groups let alone the wiki to a large extent (or the totally out-of-CS forums) so it's a huge leap of faith to assume much can become of this page and the proposals on it without author(s) actively taking part in the groups with these exact concerns and suggestions (which, in CS, comes with identifying yourself). Anu 08:42, 10 February 2007 (EST)

About transparency and opening things up

I think that this page on transparency is good, but I guess I have been wrong in my understanding of the CS use of the word. I thought that transparency was about integrating and implementing fixes/features/processes that are transparent to the user, so that every time something gets changed, the whole community doesn't need to become aware of it (ie; a bug that shuts down messaging for an afternoon).

As far as opening all groups up so that there is no "Us vs. Them", I think this is a terrible idea, however one that I think is good to at least look at. The fact of the matter is that CS is memeber run. However there are certain memebers that do different things, and some that participate by travelling/hosting, or some that do nothing.

Giving people information is good, but giving too much information can be counter productive. For example, now there are some CS structure/flow problems. As CS is mainly setup to use online collaboration, all discussions would be accessible to all. As you are trying to work through problems, it will only make matters worse if people know ALL the information. There are people who will negatively spin their views and opinions and combine information from these forums that could be hurtfull.

Although CS is a community run organization, the users still need to be looked at as customers. You want to gain customers, and keep them happy. You would never want to provide a customer with transcripts of meetings where you discussed how poorly your company was doing, or means of remedying some internal management problems. It would make the customer (the CS user) lose confidence in the organization, even if the situation and solution was fully under control.--geva 01:56, 15 February 2007 (EST)

:As far as opening all groups up so that there is no "Us vs. Them"

Transparency without all groups that are non-essential to security open is not really a clear-glass window. It is a pane frequently coated on one side to prevent outsiders from looking in while insiders look out.

The demands for transparency are increasing in large part because of couchsurfing is a global organization. As the world becomes more tightly integrated, many people are affected by, and thus want to have a say in, what used to be other people's business.

Transparency can be very broadly as “a process by which information about existing conditions, decisions and actions is made accessible, visible and understandable”

:Giving people information is good, but giving too much information can be counter productive.

When employees are not transparent in their actions, when bad news does not travel as fast as good news, when issues are hidden, and decisions are made secretly, problems persist and snowball. This might make a good reality TV show, but does make a successful company.

Instead of having gatekeepers you have accountability for ideas - it's open public and transparent and people can see what each other are doing.

Unfortunately, internal leadership cannot determine transparency without bias.There are pressures on them from various constituents to disclose or not, and if the decision is to disclose, how much and what to say. This can and often does create negotiated transparency in which the personal interests of insiders are mediated before the interests of outsiders. The result is often verisimilitude.

Transparency can only work well if two conditions are met: 1) the targets of the calls for transparency are able and willing to provide the requisite information; and 2) the recipients of the information are able to use it to evaluate the provider of the information according to some accepted standard of behavior.

Transparency is expected to improve the efficiency and fairness of markets and corporations, and to foster the accountability and legitimacy of the organization.

You want to gain customers, and keep them happy. You would never want to provide a customer with transcripts of meetings where you discussed how poorly your company was doing, or means of remedying some internal management problems.

If opacity has such negative effects, increased levels of transparency would seem to serve the public interest, necessary to both good governance and well-functioning. It is a general principle of good governance that decision makers should be held accountable for their decisions. Otherwise, error feeds upon error, and corruption breeds unchecked.

In particular instances, transparency must give way to discretion. But even in such circumstances management can act with complete candor by frankly acknowledging the decision to limit transparency and by providing a candid explanation for that decision. With such candor, management can inculcate a culture of transparency even while observing the limits imposed by discretion.

No organization is absolutely transparent, nor should it desire to be. The transparent organization is desirous of telling key audiences the information those audiences need to know to maintain credible working relationships with them.

Analysis post crash

When is lying versus not telling a whole truth? Where does “spin” enter and “hype?”

There are lies to make people feel good. There are lies to hide embarrassing activities. There are lies to conceal proprietary information. There are lies of commission where we state what we know to be incorrect and lies of omission in which we let partial facts stand while deliberately concealing other facts that hurt a client’s cause. There are lies that occur because like all other humans, we become use to “fibs” and tell them without realizing we are doing so. There are lies of exaggeration and lies of insinuation. In fact, there are so many ways to avoid telling facts transparently that it is amazing we ever do.

The result was that the company lost respect among a key audience that no longer trusted what the organization was telling them.

Lies can work temporarily to the advantage of individuals and organizations, and there are many for whom short-term victory is good enough..

Lying creates a hall of warped mirrors, an environment in which distortion and reflection leave one baffled and fearful about the world around one. People can no longer be certain about anything and whether the outcome of any representation is harmful or not.

Certain people may prefer secrecy, to cover up incompetence, to protect opportunities for rent seeking, or simply to avoid the bother of public scrutiny.

--Sue20001sa 05:20, 15 February 2007 (EST)