June 2009

Jun 19, 2009 11:48

MinutesAdvisory Board Meeting ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 21

lesliepear June 19 2009, 18:55:02 UTC
Thank you for posting this. Where was the user rep?

Reply

sushimustwrite June 19 2009, 19:06:44 UTC
Nonexistent, I'd guess, since last year's AB rep term was from 1 June to 31 May, and this year's is from July to June. As the meeting was in June, there was no elected user rep in a position to serve.

Reply

catscan June 19 2009, 19:09:37 UTC
Like she would have been there anyways, to really represent us.

Reply

sushimustwrite June 19 2009, 19:17:38 UTC
Good point, but it also explains the lack of other LJ rep.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

rebelliousuno June 19 2009, 20:43:28 UTC
I'd give them a tiny smidgin of credit these are better than previous "Minutes" not much but a little

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

elusis June 19 2009, 21:25:35 UTC
yes, we still can't search our journals' contents after 10 years, but we can commercialize them!

Reply

ciaan June 22 2009, 17:59:52 UTC
the entire meeting was on how to make more money from ads?

Looks that way. Siiiiigh.

Reply


kateshort June 19 2009, 19:39:29 UTC
It's nice to see this "report" being posted pretty quickly after the fact.

But these aren't minutes! There's nothing discussed in terms of substance. Old business vs. new business. What got tabled? What got voted on? What were the specific recommendations?

If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!

Reply

readysteadystop June 19 2009, 20:20:49 UTC
When it's OUR content that's being used to lure advertisers, then it shouldn't be subject to any NDA in the first place.

Reply

loganberrybunny June 19 2009, 20:50:01 UTC
If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!

*hollow laughter* This is LJ we're talking about. The organisation that after several years still won't let you do an Interests search for "doo-wop music" and still won't explain why the filtering is so laughably crude, but just that they "can't" explain the reasons. (It was marta who initially told me that, so I'm sure it's the truth. Doesn't stop it being insane to the nth degree.)

Reply

vakkotaur June 20 2009, 03:04:47 UTC
I still suspect this is the result of an out-of-court settlement with a secrecy clause, assuming it's real and not just something even more petty (which would not surprise me, alas). That one cannot search for "doo-wop" shows an amazingly poor filter implementation.

It's sad when one has to resort to Google's blogsearch to search within one's own journal, even if that limits the search to public entries that have been made indexable. Given that, I'd like a way to make previous entries indexable. Flipping that switch only make new entries indexable. And of course locked entries mean a purely manual search, since the right tool is missing from the LJ toolbox.

Reply


kent June 19 2009, 20:42:04 UTC
brad must just sit there chuckling, shaking his head and rolling his eyes.

These are not minutes. They are, at best, an agenda.

Reply

crackpig June 20 2009, 07:32:16 UTC
I bet he only turns up for free Coffee and Donuts.

Reply

crackpig June 20 2009, 09:47:14 UTC
When I say free, I mean "supported by advertising and sponosored journals coffee and donuts."

Reply


Leave a comment

Up