Author: Neal Yonson

Neal Yonson is a native of Ottawa. He graduated from the University of Toronto with an Hon.B.Sc. in 2006 and will be happy to tell you about how things seemed to work more smoothly there. After traveling across the country for free (protip: strategically arrange grad school visits where they reimburse travel) he came to UBC to start a Ph.D. in chemistry. He was quite happy to avoid student issues until he found out how much it cost to go to the BirdCoop. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of advocacy projects.

Categories
AMS Government

AMS committee appointment results (the interesting ones)

Well, I’m back from the 6-hour 9-minute AMS meeting of tonight*. In this post I’ll just list some of the more interesting committee appointment results and relevant comments. A more complete summary of the meeting, and further ruminations about AMS meetings generally will follow in a few hours once I’m fully conscious.

Member-at-large committee seats were filled early in the evening and council-member appointments were later. The same basic procedure was followed: the committees were listed, councilors nominated others or themselves (and members at large could nominate themselves), and if the nominees exceeded the open spots, council voted by ballot. For details about each committee’s duties and seats in the AMS code of procedure click here. I’ve consciously left out a whole slew of the appointments committees.

Alors:

campus planning & development:
Darren Peets (BoG)
Scott Bernstein (law)
Tristan Markle (science)
Margaret Orlowski (at large)
Peter Rizov (at large)
Matt Filipiak (at large)

This looks like a robust crew. Darren, the walking capus-development ecyclopedia, with Matt, Peter and Tristan should have a diversity of strong voices. I’m particularly excited about Margaret Orlowsky, who made her AMS debut tonight, having never attended a meeting before. She’s a keen graduate student that’s been involved in the anti U-boulevard petition and not much else, but got interested in the last few months. She showed up, spoke her piece, and will be doing some work in a big way. So kudos.

Budget
Stephanie Ryan (arts)
Rob Taddei (education)
Jia Lei (commerce)
Lois Chan (at large)
Justin Stevens (at large)

ad hoc Academic Quality Committee
Jessica (arts)
Lindsay (engineering)
Neal Marks (L & FS)
me! [Maayan Kreitzman] (at large)
Natalie Hillary (at large)

This is a brand-new committee that was just created By VP Academic Brendon Goodmurphy for the general purpose of addressing issues of the quality of the academic experience of students. As GSS president Matt Filipiak (I think it was him) mentioned, it is surprising that no standing committee exists in the AMS to address academic issues. For now, the committee will focus on communicating with the University to leverage the data from the NSSE (in which UBC ranked rock-bottom, plus or minus some dark benthic water layers) to forward the huge concerns regarding quality of learning here at UBC. The president of UBC, Stephen Toope has expressed interest and concern over this, and the issue of student engagement and satisfaction seems to be current and hot at the university levels right now. Not to toot my own horn too hard, but I’m quite optimistic about this committee: we can seize this opportunity to communicate to the university exactly what we students are on about, from class sizes, to enrichment of teaching skills, to course evaluations, and so on.

One more note: Natalie Hilary also popped her AMS cherry tonight. She seems super keen, and I look forward to working with her.

ad hoc Lobbying Review
Tahara Bhate (science), chair
Sam Heppell (arts)
Darren Peets (BoG)

This appointment race yielded perhaps the most dramatic moment of the evening. The Lobbying Review committee was an initiative of 04/05 president Amina Rai to create a guiding policy group to for determining lobbying policy; originally they were evaluating the pros and cons of being in CASA. Now it’s a general lobbying policy committee. According to some people, it now functions as a counterweight to the External Commission, which is appointed by the VP-external. It is not chaired by the VP External. Clearly, political types go for this position. Notably, both Tristan Markle and Nathan Crompton, (both perceivedly “radical” left-wing activists and Knoll-contributors) threw their hats in, and failed to win. Crompton, in his motivation, made a particularly unsavory sling at VP external Matthew Naylor, saying that it would be particularly important to elect him, as a representative of an alternative viewpoint since the current VP External was ineffective due to his involvement in party politics. (Matthew has campaigned for the federal Liberals). Though the evaluation of councilors in regard to their personal politics is valid, and should have a venue on council, this was not an appropriate time to air it. Alienating the executive whose portfolio the committee you are proposing to join concerns is impractical, not to mention divisive. It is certainly possible to express diverse opinions about lobbying issues (which is what this is all supposed to come down to) directly without irrelevant personal targeting. Crompton’s further comment that it was “not personal” I found disingenuos and strange. Anyhow, the tactic didn’t pay off. Interesting to note in this context is Sam Heppell’s rigorous involvement as the president of the the UBC NDP club. I have not heard any complaints about this. Basically, this, or any, committee is not free of partisanship, nor should it be. Lets recognize that and not privilege some ideological affiliations (be they political parties or otherwise) over others.

Communication Planning Group
Jeff Friedrich, (AMS president), chair
Ryan Corbett (invited at the discretion of the chair)
Andrew Forshner (arts)
Conor Topley (commerce)
Alex Lougheed (science)

This should be interesting. This is the only committee chaired by the president. It is dealing with large issues of the AMS’s visibility and communication with students, an issue whose shortcomings have been much lamented on this blog and elsewhere. The committee is going to think about possibly re-branding the AMS, as well as using available venues and technology to better reach John Q. They’ll be working with Allison, the newly-hired Communications Manager. Corbett, though he will no longer be a member of council after the arts representatives turn over (between now and next meeting) was invited at the discretion of the chair to continue in the Group due to his “valuable insights” this year. There are no member-at-large seats in the Group. Lets hope for some strong results!

Code & Policy
Scott Bernstein (law), chair
Sam Heppell (arts)
Alex Lougheed (science)
Jason (GSS)
……. (at large)
……. (at large)

Oversight
Sam Heppel (arts), chair
Jason (GSS)
Alex Lougheed (science)
Scott Bernstein (law)
Conor Topley (commerce)

Notice that the Code & Policies committee, and Oversight committee members are one and the same (except for Conor). It has been highlighted to me that modes (or maybe molds?) exist within the council, that members fall comfortably into, because they fit. Not a bad thing, just an observation.

Buisness Operations Committee
Tahara Bhate (science)
Connor Topley (commerce)
Aidha Sheikh (GSS)
Colin Simkus (at large)

Impacts
Neal Marks (L & FS)
Joel Koczwarski (arts)
Omid Javadi (engineering)

A few more orphan comments:

  • There has be consternation and discussion about the lack of advertisement for at-large committee seats. There were a significant number of at-large candidates, and only one (if recall) committee was filled with no vote, and that was the budget committee. Right now, the message goes out through the constituencies to presumably moderately involved members within them. The executive has never made efforts to publicize these positions and makes no bones about saying so. But, as Jeff detailed in a comment on the below post, this has been recognized as a flaw. The reorganization of AMS volunteer connections and AMS job link (which was carried at today’s meeting), to be
    combined and renamed AMS Connect, is supposed to have more detailed online postings for internal volunteer positions henceforth. This is to more widely publicize AMS positions on committees, commissions, working groups and so forth, as well as build a greater sense of community and relevance among students-at-large. Too bad the regular half-assed effort at publicizing the positions was still in effect for this round.
  • Students-at-large may only sit on one (1) appointed position within the AMS, according to the interpretation of the following passage of code (section I, article 1, paragraph 4) :

    “Student At Large” shall mean an Active Member who is eligible to serve in an
    appointed position by virtue of not being a member of Council and not currently holding any other position to which he or she has been appointed by Council, a Council Committee, a Commission, a Planning Group, the Ombudsperson, the Executive Committee, an individual member of the Executive, or the Executive Coordinator of Student Services. (emphasis added)

    During the course of the evening, there were many council-designated seats on committees that were not eagerly filled, or not filled at all. So much so that Brendon Goodmurphy put forward a motion to suspend Code and allow more than one person from each constituency to be appointed to one committee just to be able to fill them (normally, for example, only one Arts representative is permitted on a given committee as per section V, article 2, paragraph 3). Opening up multiple committee appointments to members at large is practical. There is no explicit statement to the contrary in code – only the above cited definition.

  • This council is certainly not disinclined to choose members at large that are unfamiliar to it if they show up and give a half-decent spiel. Margaret and Natalie showed that. Here’s hoping more will follow their example.
  • PiR^2 does not serve matza pizza on Passover during 6-hour long AMS meetings. This is a violation of human rights, and should be treated as such for speedy mitigation ASAP.
  • If I’m missing information, or erring, please post updates/corrections. It’s been a long night.

*I totally did write this up last night at 1 am when I got home. Due to a silly internet connection, I don’t seem like as huge a keener as I am.


Categories
AMS Campus Life

AMS Committee Appointments


Important Notice
Sorry Timbits, gonna hog the spotlight for 20 hours or so

The AMS is appointing students to their many committees. This is where some of the major gruntwork is done at the AMS level.

Once again the AMS hasn’t advertised the at large committee spots at all nor was there a preliminary description on how often they meet, how much time commitment it is. IE. This is NOT accessible to “at large” students.

I don’t care what the execs have to say to defend themselves but it’s a pet peeve of mine and Peter Rizov will agree with me. What’s the new PR manager doing? The Webmaster? Hello AMS we are yet again failing at Student engagement.

See the list of open committee spots behind the jump.

Open to all UBC Students are the following seats:

2 seats – the Budget Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – the Compensation Review Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – to the Code and Policies Committee for a term commencing immediately
and ending March 31, 2008

3 seats – to the Primary Appointments Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – to the Coordinators Appointments Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – to the Commissioners Appointments Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – to the Assistant Appointments Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

1 seat – to the Business Operations Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – to the Fundraising and Sponsorship Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats – to the Campus Planning & Development Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008 (HI MAAYAN)

2 seats – to the UPass Subsidy Review Committee for a term commencing immediately and ending March 31, 2008

2 seats to the ad-hoc Academic Quality Committee for a term commencing
immediately and ending March 31, 2008

To get appointed, show up to AMS Council Wednesday April 4 (tomorrow) at 6pm at SUB 206 council chambers.

UGH.

Categories
AMS

Hmmm….

The Ubyssey covers it well. My short version: non-campus students want U-Pass, AMS asked Student Court if they were members under the bylaws, Student Court said yes, AMS sent question back for clarification, Student Court says they are entitled to be AMS members.

The AMS Student Court says that co-op students should be members.
AMS Exec and Council disagree.

So what to do? They decide to “ignore” the whole question, rather than “reject” it. Apparently they will negotiate individually with those students.

I’m not gonna lie – I don’t understand how they can do that. What’s the point of a student court, exactly, if we can just ignore its ruling by putting our hands over our ears and pretending not to hear? What’s now to stop a co-op or commerce diploma student from going to student court on their own initiative to force the AMS to make them part of their membership? More troublingly, what’s stopping a co-op student from going to real court to seek a similar interpretation?

It was said at Council by the execs that “we couldn’t get a result we wanted.” That seems kinda wrong, no?

Categories
AUS Campus Life

Bigger is better?

I’m very loyal to Arts. But people tend to respond defensively when I criticize, so I’m forced to preface this by saying “please don’t respond defensively.”

In their most recent elections, the AUS had 400 voters. SUS? 1400. Which is quite the difference. But it’s even more stark if you realize for a second that Arts is more than twice the size of Science. Now I know voter turnout is a pretty poor measure of engagement. And might be explained by other factors, like online voting in SUS, and campaign differences, on which I’d rather not dwell. But I think it’s relatively clear that, on-campus, Science students are more engaged with their student society than are Arts ones.

This makes me sad. To be sure, there are probably reasons related to the management of the undergrad societies, but those are almost certain to provoke the defensive responses that make me cry myself to sleep at night (or not). So let’s focus on the systemic reasons this could be the case:

  1. Faculty size. Arts is huge. Science less so. It’s a very de-centralized faculty, and there is little shared affinity between people in various programs of study. By contrast, Science is at least smaller, there are more common classes (in early years) and, most importantly, there’s a sense that being “in Science” means something that being “in Arts” doesn’t. What’s the solution? Perhaps leveraging AUS council and contacts to work to develop affinities at the deparemental level, and complete the circle by ensuring that there’s some way the departments come back to Arts at the end of the day.
  2. Physical space. I’ve mentioned this before, but the new Ladha centre is far superior to MASS. MASS is designed in such a way as to place the AUS at the centre whilst relegating students to the periphery, while Ladha, even though it houses SUS offices (which are smaller than those for the AUS), is far more student-friendly. It’s also important to note that spaces like the war room and other ones in MASS aren’t used as much by students as the Ladha ones. No idea why. (The AUS ought to also consider learning from SUS which has managed to leverage its fantastic new space… it’s become a hub for all sorts of student-friendly activities.)
  3. Arts County Fair. Ask any AUSer what they’re doing this time of year, and they say “Fair.” Cuz they are. It consumes the AUS for a good chunk of the year. While I love ACF, I can’t help but wonder if this is a service that the AUS ought to invest to much of its time and energy. (I should first note that time and energy are necessarily a zero sum game – if someone is spending time on A, then that is less time they can be spending on B and C.) What’s the return to Arts students for the fair? They get no additional benefit. Hell, they don’t even get a discount on admission. It’s an Arts event in name only. Which I’m fine with, but it clearly comes at the cost of other engagement. Moreover, there exists a perception that “all the AUS does is ACF.” While I’ll be the first to say that’s not the case, that perception can quite readily alienate the thousands of Arts students who don’t attend the fair. I’m all for ACF, and it’s a valuable campus service, but we can’t disregard the cost.
  4. Snobbery. Arts students have an inferiority complex that makes me sad. There’s the “would you like fries with that” stigma that surrounds an Arts degree, and I suspect it contributes to a drop in affinity.

I’m sure there’s more, but I’m late for real estate transactions. But I’m curious as to thoughts. It’s an uphill battle in Arts, and it’s been that way for as long as I can remember. I’m also at a loss for solutions. Any thoughts?

Categories
Uncategorized

We are still a commuter campus

So a Transit Strike would kick our ass.

Categories
Campus Life Government

An Ideological Crusade (or, a gross waste of my tax dollars)

So, the Provincial Government is planning to implement a tobacco free campus initiative, and certain members of campus are just too overjoyed at this.

I currently sit on the committee which looks at Policy 15, which will be drastically revised to ban all sales of tobacco and tobacco related products from campus grounds. (Do I smell a lawsuit from Shoppers?)

Forgetting about the tyrannical aspect of this legislation for a second here, I simply do not see the point of its existence. This whole project only works if you presume that a smoker will quit smoking if this policy/and Provincial legislation is put in place. If there are people who actually believe this is going to follow, enlighten me as to how.

From my experience we will always find out where we can get smokes, even if we have to hop on a 17 and run to Safeway on Sasamat. So the whole effect of this is merely a redistribution of wealth to outside of the borders of campus grounds, and potential loss of a leases in the Student Union Building (ie Lucky Market) and University Boulevard (Shoppers). Well, maybe not Shoppers. Oh by the way, this will not make us stop smoking. Any arguments of trying to protect the non-smokers from second hand smoke therefore quickly degenerate.

This ideological crusade is a feeble attempt secondary to violating an individual’s liberty. And it will also only pass legislature because the smoking population (15%) is a minority in BC. If this had applied to alcohol, there would be much greater objection.

Nevertheless, my final point is this: while we are driven by this benevolent mission to rescue people from their obvious health catastrophe (oh let me be your saviour, you misguided lamb), the very UBC members spearheading this with valor are conveniently forgetting the fact that their very pension plan is heavily invested in tobacco companies. While their entire life mission may be to make people quit smoking on campus, what they fail to address is their own deeply rooted systemic reliance on Tobacco companies.

(Timeline: this is going to Board on May 7, circulated around the community for “consultation”, and then voted on at the next Board meeting.)

Categories
Campus Life

Fridays

As I gaze longingly back at years of yore, reflecting on my precious half-decade involved at UBC, I can’t help but notice the absolute depths to which campus community have plummeted. Seriously. Where are all the beer gardens?

I used to love beer gardens. Not because I’d get smashed, but because it was where the community happened. A bzzr garden wasn’t about beer, it was about the roving community of people who’d hang out on Fridays, travelling the campus. I can say that, without hesitation, but for beer gardens I’d never have been elected to BoG. In all honesty, involvement in that social circle was that tiny bit of a foot in the door that got me involved in the orbit of campus politics.

I can’t help but feel that those days are behind us. And I, for one, find that sad. Even more sad are the explanations I’ve come up with. (And yes, I do spend time worrying about this. For reals.)

  • Admissions averages. Students have higher marks coming out of high school, and are expecting to keep them. Fridays are less beer-y, more study-y.
  • Higher tuition, more loan dependency. Students are more likely to be working on Fridays or studying (because they were working on Thursday) or sleeping because they’re exhausted.
  • Pressure to get second degree. The first degree is becoming rapidly obsolete. Students feel the need to get into grad/law/med school, and that means higher marks.
  • Police crack-down. Seriously. What gives? The cops showed up to every beer garden on campus in the first semester, creating a “chill” around future events. They’re denying licenses and killing on-campus booze-based socializing.
  • The “millennial” generation. Bzzr gardens are a starting off point for entrepreneurial fun. You really have to make your own, bzzr gardens were just a way to meet up and get started. The millennial generation are kids who like rules, need a little hand-holding, and are far more likely to go to a more formal party environment or structured social activity.
  • Specialization of fun. Less affinity and sense of community to the institution as a whole, more with narrow friends. Probably a function of the combination of things above.

I could be wrong. But I don’t think I am.

And the worst part? Grad, law, and med schools don’t need more keener kids, they need well-rounded people with *gasp* social skills. And here’s a tip – in the real world, people drink booze. Sometimes a lot. And college is probably as good a time as any to learn how to drink socially. It’s way better than getting blasted on tequila in res.

I miss beer gardens.

(Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my posting this at 11pm on a Saturday. I’m in the middle of a paper. Bite me.)

Categories
Uncategorized

Return of the Political?


Stephanie Ryan Photography

So I’ve been facebook-stalking the newly elected blood to AMS Council, and I think in general we have a good group. And with good I mean politically charged and fairly capable.

Aside from Amy Boultbee and Kate Power, the bunch seem fit to enter the AMS arena and add some interesting discussions to the AMS committees and the Council agenda.

Andrew Forshner is a debate hack (Tim probably knows him), and labels his political leanings as “moderate”. My guess is he’s one of those conservative-leaning Young Liberals of UBC. And you know what? While we would politically disagree on issues, I’m really happy he got elected. This is part of re-injection of political urgency.

Case in point, his platform says “I have been an avid follower of AMS and AUS politics for 4 years, and am running to advocate for ideas that I believe are in the best interests of UBC students.

I think that the AMS wastes too much time and too much money on policy and events that affect too few students as possible. I want to change this so that the AMS becomes a student society that affects all students as much as possible.

UBC is a commuter campus whose populace is ill informed about the multitude of fascinating events that happen every day on campus. If elected I would push the AMS to create a forum that would inform students about all of the social and educational events that are occurring on campus everyday, from better promotions in the SUB to mass e-mails detailing what’s happening “This Week at UBC”.”

This is awesome! I hope he will get onto the AMS CPG (Communication and Planning Group).

Joel Koczwarski is one of our favourites as he hasn’t thrown down the political towel after the AMS elections. I’m happy his platform is also strongly sustainability-driven, as Sarah Naiman admitted this wasn’t her strongest part of her background knowledge. His enthusiasm could infect the AMS Impacts Committee with energy and progressive agenda items.

My secret political crush on AMS has been Sam Heppell. He seems like the eager enthusiastic type that I can see with AMS exec potential. His first meeting, he was already biting into the discussions and NOT sheep-voting (aka voting with the crowd because you have no clue what’s going on, which is one of my biggest pet peeves).

His platform hits the nail on the head: “I am eager to continue that work. One of the most important issues facing UBC right now is campus development, and the AMS must stand up and raise the concerns and needs of students. Although far from being an expert in planning and development, I have some experience to offer. In my home community, I have worked on the Official Community Plan review process, and serve on a regional district Advisory Planning Commission. I will work to ensure that UBC embarks upon
growth and development that is smart and sustainable, and that always puts
the needs of students first.

Although I have served on the AMS for only a short time, I am proud
of my performance so far (including a 100% attendance record!). If
re-elected, I will continue to represent you with competence and commitment. “

Then there’s Nathan Crompton. I’m biased because I helped him with his campaign. I expect him to remind council constantly of the tough issues – the systemic problems on accessibility, research directions catering towards corporations. People will find him “radical” because he’ll force council to think critically. He is from a different league than the typical “I want to get involved (giggle)” or “I love Arts so vote for me (giggle again)”. Make no mistake, he has a very keen understanding of the issues and will put council on the spot. I just hope his soft-spoken nature will project his opinion effectively onto the often rowdy council.

I don’t really have much praise for Amy Boultbee or Kate Power as their platforms only speak about their experience without a demonstrated interest in actually sitting on AMS Council. Amy likes going to Model United Nations in Boston. Oh and lives in Totem Park and enjoys swimming! Er, ok. Thanks for that. (Anyways.)

Kate thinks that “going from [the position of French Club Representative on the AUS] to AMS Rep is not a huge leap. In fact, all I am doing is adding some committees and making what I already do with the AUS official”. She has forgotten the 5 hour+ meetings every second Wednesday. Though I do like her attitude: “I am a responsible, positive individual and would love to be more connected to the AUS and the AMS.” Let’s give her the benefit of doubt and hope the dedication for AUS transfers itself to the AMS as well.

I withhold commenting on Jessica Hannon because I can’t find any information on her.

Categories
Uncategorized

AUS Election Results

Who won the AUS elections?

President
Stephanie Ryan (Incumbent)

VP Internal
Vicki Lindström

VP External
Tyler Allison

VP Finance
Michelle Yuen

Academic Coordinator
Stash Bylicki

Social Coordinator
Jeremy McElroy.

Student Services
Michael Serebriakov

Promotions
Ashley Pritchard

AMS Reps (7)
Jessica Hannon
Nathan Crompton
Amy Boultbee
Sam Heppell
Joel Koczwarski
(Kate Power????
Andrew Forshner???)

Senator
Erin Rennie

General Officer
Chris Chapman
Mike Jerowsky
Katherine McGill
Sarah Howe
Tom Lamb

Categories
Student Movement

The Knowledge Gap

I don’t want to draw attention away from the post below. Read it, too. But that’s why I’ve hidden this one behind a jump. But don’t let that stop you from reading this one, either. Read it all! Just remember there’s two new posts tonight. We’re busy.

Don’t worry, this isn’t a post about the Ubyssey. But in a way it is. See some people, including Gina, have taken the Ubyssey to task for what they see as shoddy reporting on campus affairs. My opinion is slightly different. Would I prefer them to be a more campus-centered paper? Of course – if they don’t, who else will? (I draw a distinction, though, between covering AMS minutiae and campus affairs; the latter are important, the former far less so.)

But my issue with the Ubyssey isn’t really an issue about the Ubyssey, it’s about the campus political machinery as a whole. However, I’ll use the paper as an example. See it’s my sense that those who write the paper don’t have enough of a knowledge base to adequately cover what’s important – heck, they don’t have enough knowledge to know what’s important in the first place. It’s really hard to cover, say, the development of a new campus plan or the OCP, MCP, MOU, or amendments thereto without already knowing what all those are, what they mean, and how they inter-relate.

Now be honest – who here actually knows what they all mean? My guess is there’s maybe ten students who do.

Let’s be clear – I don’t fault them. It’s a very rational ignorance. The required information is very high-cost – it takes significant energy to educate yourself to even the baseline degree necessary to understand these things. And to someone who’s a student, has a zillion other things, it’s just not worth it. It really isn’t.

I also don’t think it’s just the Ubyssey. I think the vast majority of the student political world is the same way. The vast majority don’t have the baseline understanding of how development politics work – they just don’t like big buildings. Most don’t understand the budgetary process or Policy 72, but don’t like when tuition goes up. Again, I don’t fault this (much).

Why? Because nobody’s taken the time to educate them. This information is very high-cost, relatively inaccessible. To get all the background info is difficult enough – to synthesize it into accessible forms without dumbing it down is a challenge unto itself. We’re all students with lots on our plates.

So what’s the solution? It’s for those who know the stuff to get out there, spread the word. Produce the one-sheets, the backgrounders, make sure there’s a baseline level of knowledge that’s far more broad than the AMS executive offices. (Don’t think all student politicians have this. Far from it.) There’s so much knowledge and information tucked away in our brains, and it’s just going to waste up there. Also, don’t assume our constituents (and readers) don’t care. They do – nobody’s just ever told them why these things are important. (“They spend your fees” doesn’t make the AMS important, by the way… get a better answer.)

My humble suggestion: if you’re rich in knowledge, spread it far and wide, and don’t chide those whose knowledge level isn’t up to yours. And if your knowledge level ain’t so great, listen and learn from those who’ve done the legwork. Ask! There’s a good chance they’re willing to talk.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet