Amazing. Love your reply (all of it). Your second point in the beginning made me realize that your definitions are meant to match your observations (not some hypothetical construct). I like the paragraph "I could see... Risky prospects" because it makes one of your recommendations really explicit and therefore makes it easier for me to understand what you think ought to be and what is. And on top of that I like the recommendation. So thanks.
I found it to be a pleasant read, thanks. I always like clear distinctions between concepts and I feel your article does this well. The article also seems to include several partially implicit recommendations. I feel these recommendations should either have been made more explicit and more structured or should not have been there.
In various parts of the article you make a connection between the effectiveness of a community building organisation and them receiving money. To me it is unclear whether you are recommending that more money should be allocated towards community building (in which case I feel there is a lack of supportive evidence presented) or whether you are just posting a hypothesis (in which case I feel it is presented too much as a recommendation).
The conclusion of the article also seems to hold a recommendation. To me it is unclear what the difference is between your recommendation and the current situation. Right now I feel slightly confused and if pressed I would guess (based on the paragraph including the “-yay, meta!-” comment) that you would like to cut out a middle layer?
These are just two examples, similar issues arise for me with the other recommendations. A possible way of solving this (next time?) could be to include your recommendations as bullet points in your conclusion and explicitly state to what open question the recommendation pertains and how your recommendation differs from the current consensus opinion or current situation. I think this will facilitate discussion.
Overall I like it as I feel all your recommendations seem both relevant and sensible. I just feel it could be improved by being more explicit and structured in your recommendations.
Amazing. Love your reply (all of it). Your second point in the beginning made me realize that your definitions are meant to match your observations (not some hypothetical construct). I like the paragraph "I could see... Risky prospects" because it makes one of your recommendations really explicit and therefore makes it easier for me to understand what you think ought to be and what is. And on top of that I like the recommendation. So thanks.
I found it to be a pleasant read, thanks. I always like clear distinctions between concepts and I feel your article does this well. The article also seems to include several partially implicit recommendations. I feel these recommendations should either have been made more explicit and more structured or should not have been there.
In various parts of the article you make a connection between the effectiveness of a community building organisation and them receiving money. To me it is unclear whether you are recommending that more money should be allocated towards community building (in which case I feel there is a lack of supportive evidence presented) or whether you are just posting a hypothesis (in which case I feel it is presented too much as a recommendation).
The conclusion of the article also seems to hold a recommendation. To me it is unclear what the difference is between your recommendation and the current situation. Right now I feel slightly confused and if pressed I would guess (based on the paragraph including the “-yay, meta!-” comment) that you would like to cut out a middle layer?
These are just two examples, similar issues arise for me with the other recommendations. A possible way of solving this (next time?) could be to include your recommendations as bullet points in your conclusion and explicitly state to what open question the recommendation pertains and how your recommendation differs from the current consensus opinion or current situation. I think this will facilitate discussion.
Overall I like it as I feel all your recommendations seem both relevant and sensible. I just feel it could be improved by being more explicit and structured in your recommendations.