Provide metrics on member help desk case activity

[cdc]

@david-shearer,

Recommend providing metrics on the help desk to all members:

# of open support cases

# of closed support cases by a time interval (monthly, weekly)

average time to respond the first time to a support case

average time to resolve a support case

Other ideas?

[gthompson]

CDC - reach out to me via linked in and we can set up a call. Greg J. Thompson. I’m not a whiner, and I would appreciate a direct conversation. We need to level set. 

[rslade]

> gthompson (Newcomer II) posted a new reply in Member Support on 08-14-2019 07:34

>  I just have a demanding day job and family life that
> makes it hard to stay on top of community posts.

We all have demanding jobs, and most of us have family life.

It's just always been a bit odd that the Board members seem to think that the
vehicles for communication with the membership (like the "community" and the
CISSPforum before it) are a) beneath them or b) unimportant.

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
The key to life is not accumulation. It's contribution.
- Stephen R. Covey
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

[cdc]

Greg, here’s the deal. Throughout this entire debacle, members have been ignored.

I haven’t seen one board member reach out to all of us and communicate. There is no need for us to speak in person. The membership deserves to hear from the board.

I asked member support how to reach board members and was told a specIal form had to be filled out and evaluated before it might be shared. I then went looking for board members on here and found your name and CEO’s but no means to each all of you. I also spoke with the board chair on the phone.

What I have encountered are responses that are less sufficient than the depth of the problem. If the forums are studied, it is clear others have frustrations too.

It is unfortunate that these issues have occurred. Lack of communication has been the main downfall and yet I still have seen a membership-wise apology and plan of action.

Best of luck. If situation doesn’t improve, I’m going to drop out of ISC2.

[gthompson]

@rslade Really??  That’s not true. I was characterized as. “Lurker” ... I simply responded to that. What other examples can you share to support your assertion?

[gthompson]

@cdc

So you want to reach board members and complain that nobody responds, and when the vice chair offers to speak directly you decline? Ok I understand. You can surely understand my frustration.

Board members are listed on (ISC)2 main website - we are not hard to find. 

My offer stands - https://www.linkedin.com/in/greg-thompson-04b994

GT

[gthompson]

Thanks Shannon.. you ARE being heard!

[dcontesti]

---

@gthompson wrote:

@rslade Really??  That’s not true. I was characterized as. “Lurker” ... I simply responded to that. What other examples can you share to support your assertion?

---

I guess your definition of lurker is different than mine.   For years, I have read notes on the CISSPforum but seldom responded to them and was called a lurker, to which I took no offense.   In Internet terminology, a lurker " typically is a member of an online community or PLN who observes, but does not participate."  So by my and this definition there was no malice intended.

As it is apparent that you have taken offense to the term, I would like to apologize.

[Shannon]

---

@dcontesti wrote:

---

---

 In Internet terminology, a lurker " typically is a member of an online community or PLN who observes, but does not participate." 

FTR, I wasn't familiar with the term 'lurker' when used in the context of internet activity, and just looked it up online.

Since I've learned something, I'll take it as a take from this thread...   

[cdc]

Greg,

Your obligation is to all members.  I went to the trouble to find and talk to the Chairperson of the Board.  I only tagged you on the forums because you were the only one I could find.  That has turned into an exercise I regret and won't make again.  Thanks for your reluctant participation.

And for the record, there should be a formal method to contact the board.  No one should have to "hunt you down".  That is how a professional organization is run.

[rslade]

---

@gthompson wrote:

@rslade Really??  That’s not true. I was characterized as. “Lurker” ... I simply responded to that. What other examples can you share to support your assertion?

---

OK, as to the "lurker" designation:

You've been a member for a year and a half.  You've made 18 posts.  As a matter of fact, up until a couple of days ago, you'd made only four posts.

I'd say that's pretty much a definition of a lurker ...

(Oh, and I find it hugely amusing that some of your earlier posts mention the importance of communication ...)