Vote AGAINST “Auto Assign” « STC Connecticut Chapter Blog

Vote AGAINST “Auto Assign”

June 26, 2007 · 10 Comments

This topic is for the vote for or against “auto assign.”

I (and the STC Connecticut Chapter Board of Directors) recommend our members vote against “auto assign.”

Why the vote? There is a vote because the Connecticut Chapter BOD requested the STC turn off “auto assign” for Connecticut residents and the STC would not do so without feedback from the membership.

Why is “auto assign” bad? Because your chapter membership affiliation can change without your knowledge, permission, and without you being informed of the change.

Moreover, this can happen to STC members who live in Connecticut and change their address WITHIN Connecticut.

“Auto assign” is poorly designed, poorly implemented, and not communicated. It should be turned off.

So, here’s more on auto assign on the Connecticut Chapter Website. If you can, please read it before replying here: http://www.stc-ct.org/SaveCT/savect.htm.

Here is the email sent by the STC to members with an address in Connecticut :

===================

Dear STC Connecticut Chapter members:At the request of Connecticut Chapter leadership , we are asking you how you prefer to have your membership record formatted.

The two basic questions are these:

1. If you move outside of the state of Connecticut, do you want your chapter membership to move with you to your new state of residence?
2. If you move within the state of Connecticut close to the New York Metro Chapter, do you wish to have your membership switched to that chapter or do you prefer to stay a member of the Connecticut Chapter?

While these seem to be simple questions, they relate to an entire philosophical approach toward handling membership records. Your input is important to helping us choose the best course of action for all concerned.

Background
When a member joins the Society, he or she can choose the name of an actual chapter to join or can allow the Society to “auto assign” a chapter based on their zip code. Members must check a box to disable the “auto assign” feature. (Whatever you choose when you joined STC is what remains in effect for your member record format unless you have expressly requested that it be changed.)

The way the “auto assign” function works is if a member moves, for example, from Washington, D.C. to Berkeley, California, his/her membership is automatically transferred from the DC chapter to the Berkeley chapter.

This works well when a member moves across the country, but can be a problem when there are several chapters within a close geographic distance such as the Connecticut Chapter and the New York Metro Chapter.

Under the auto assign feature, members who live in Connecticut in zip codes (06001 through 06801) are assigned to the Connecticut Chapter, while members who live in Connecticut in zip codes (06804 through 0692 are assigned to the New York Metro Chapter rather than the Connecticut Chapter. If a member moves from one of the Connecticut zip codes to one of the New York Metro zip codes, their membership is automatically moved–unless they chose the “disable” the “auto assign” feature.

The reason this request has been made is a member of the Connecticut Chapter recently changed his STC address of record, which resulted in his chapter being switched from Connecticut to New York Metro. This was not the member’s desired action. He is concerned that this situation may occur to others of you (unknowingly) should you change your address of record within the state of Connecticut.

To ensure that action is taken based on your wishes, you are being asked directly to let us know the following:

1. Do you want the “auto assign” feature disabled for you?
2. Do you think the “auto assign” feature should be disabled for all Connecticut Chapter members?

Please send me your feedback by COB Friday, July 6.

Thank you!
Merrick
____________________________________
Merrick Bechini
Director of Information Systems
Society for Technical Communication
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 904
Arlington, VA 22203 USA
Direct (NEW): +1 571 366 1905
Office: +1 703 522 4114
Fax: +1 703 522 2075
merrick@stc.org

Categories: Auto Assign · Connecticut Chapter Issues

10 responses so far ↓

techcommdood // June 27, 2007 at 12:31 am

I read the site and this blog. It seems much ado about turning off a flag in a database. I posted my thoughts on my blog.
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com/2007/06/auto-asinine.html
Linda // June 28, 2007 at 9:49 am

I believe that this issue can be resolved by better communication to all members about the auto-assign feature. For 99.9% of cases (a WAG number, not statistically valid), members appreciate auto-assign. It was set up to HELP members, not hurt them! In certain areas such as New York Metro, and the San Francisco Metro area, automatic chapter transfer might not work. It’s good that this is coming to light. Let’s make sure chapter leaders in the chapters that might be affected are better informed so that they can in turn inform their members. That way, when a member moves, he or she can consciously make that choice.

Linda Oestreich
STC President
STC-CT Webmaster // June 28, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Hi,

Thanks Bill! Nice post. Linda, thanks an awful lot for stopping by. Please, invite others to comment on the blog. Differing opinions are welcome, especially those with comprehensive knowledge. More and clearer communication would certainly help on this issue.

Unfortunately, however, the only way to ensure that when a member moves, he or she can consciously make that choice, is to turn off “auto assign.” Of course, the Connecticut Chapter BOD just wants this turned off for Connecticut resident STCers, so any broader application is outside the scope of our official request.
Here is my reasoning that turning off “auto assign” is the only way to provide members control of their chapter affiliations:

1) The STC turned on “auto assign” for everyone without asking. Members weren’t told about “auto assign,” so they don’t know to call and turn it off. Members cannot log on to their account to turn “auto assign” off because there is no control there for “auto assign.” Reportedly, members can turn off “auto assign” when they renew their membership, because there is a control there; but, nobody I’ve communicated with remembers such a control, so even if it is there, it’s not useful. Thus, members cannot effectively control their membership if “auto assign” is turned on.

2) What are the use cases for using “auto assign”? Every member gets to assign themselves once a year when they renew their membership. So, for twelve months, how many times does the average member move between renewals such that “auto assign” is useful? I’m asking because I don’t know.

I can see where “auto assign” might be useful to student members who travel between school and home. Are contractor tech writers who move between, say, Florida and Maine, really interested in changing their affiliation each time they move? Are these valid use cases that outweigh the potential (and real) harm of “auto assign”?

Consider my particular use case. I am a Boston chapter member and a Connecticut chapter member. When I changed my address from slightly-eastern Connecticut to slightly-western Connecticut, if “auto assign” were to be most useful, surely it would have dropped my Boston membership and assigned me to New York, such that I ended up with New York and Connecticut? Instead, it left me with New York and Boston.

3) The State of Connecticut is smaller than the county of San Diego. The Connecticut chapter is a geographic community. While it might make sense for Western states, does it make sense to use “auto assign” within the boundaries of Connecticut? The state is only about 200 miles across by 100 miles.

I moved my address 75 miles. Does it make sense to expect that every single technical writer who moves 75 miles wants to drop their current chapter, regardless of how close the next chapter is? Is it reasonable for a member to move 75 miles and not want to change chapters? I think there’s enough reasonable doubt about a member moving 75 miles within the geographic boundaries of their chapter that an automatic, unrequested, uncommunicated change in affiliation is bound to cause some problems.

At least leaving the process as a manual one by disabling “auto assign” means no harm is done and leaves members in full control of their affiliation.
Again, thanks for posting, please let’s blog the pros and cons of this. Non-Connecticut members are more than welcome to further the discussion!

Sean Brierley
Jan E. Patterson // June 29, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Auto-assign to automatically change the chapter that a member specifically designates when renewing each year? No information provided to STC members about this feature? And then no ability on the STC Web site for members to change the default for this feature? And this is the Society for Technical Communication? An oversight, or failing to look at the big picture and plan the implementation?
Donna Jones // July 1, 2007 at 10:15 pm

My job is in the Chicago area, but I moved to Michigan. I choose to stay involved with the Chicago chapter because that’s where I know people.

As far as I know, the closest chapter to me is near Detroit, which is roughly 200 miles from where I live. I don’t know anyone there, and I don’t plan to attend anything there because I never go there. Why would I want to be affiliated with that chapter, particularly without being told? (Nothing against anyone in Detroit personally!)

What should be automated when someone changes addresses is an offer from STC to switch that person’s affiliation, not the actual switch. How hard would it be to set up an automated e-mail that instructs someone what to do if they want to make the switch? “If you would like to switch chapters, click this link and select your new chapter from the drop-down list of STC chapters. The closest one to your new address is ____.”

You would think that someone within STC would be able to handle that.
Whitney // July 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm

When I first heard about this several weeks ago from Sean I was stunned by the absurdity of it all.

I live and work quite near the geographic “fence” between their ZIP code zones. If I were to move 8 miles west of here, I’d get auto-assigned to the NY Metro chapter. Nothing against New York, or Northern New Jersey (where I understand NY Metro chapter meetings are sometimes held), but I wouldn’t drive there for meetings … mainly because it involves driving on one of the most congested, most onerous stretches of interstate highway in the Northeast.

If I moved to Greenwich or New Canaan, I MIGHT think differently but I doubt it. I have a nearly 10-year-old affliliation with the CT chapter, one that would not and could not be easily left behind.

This is a case of strangers trying to think and make decisions for strangers. Chapter assignments and switches need to be left to individual STC members…period. Only the individual members know the local geography, highways, drive times, traffic trouble spots. Only individuals know their own tolerance for driving. And only members know how deep their ties are to their chapters.

Given all the variables (such as the ones noted by Sean and Donna), I think there’s more of a case for getting rid of auto-assign entirely than for keeping it. Each STC member is more than capable of selecting a chapter and, when necessary, changing a chapter affiliation.
STC-CT Webmaster // July 3, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Another discussion about “auto assign” is happening on the STC forums. For more points of view, go here: http://www.stcforums.com/viewtopic.php?id=875 .
STC-CT Webmaster // July 17, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Auto assign is being left alone. Here’s the letter that was sent out. Feel free to blog your feelings of it.

Ask yourself if the original poll letter accurately represented the opinion of the elected members of the Connecticut Chapter board. Was that document clear and unambiguous? Did it tell all sides of the issue? Ask if the questions were appropriate (why would 50% of the respondents not feel comfortable speaking for the chapter?). Ask if the conclusions follow from the results.

—–Original Message—–
From: Merrick Bechini
Sent: Tue 7/17/2007 5:31 PM
To: Brierley, Sean; Donna Ford; Cindy Currie; charjt
Cc: Susan Burton; Evelyn McCamey; Lloyd Tucker
Subject: Results of CT Auto-Assignment Poll

Hi All,

Following are the results of the Connecticut chapter poll. The chapter poll was sent to all chapter members with an e-mail address (79 people at the time of the survey) .

Disable Auto-Assign for me: 13 voted for, 4 voted against Disable Auto-Assign for the Chapter: 6 voted for and 6 voted against
As for steps moving forward I will be disabling auto-assign for the 13 members of the CT chapter who did not wish it. However, with the low response rate and the 50-50 split on the issue of the auto-assignment change, which may be a result of members being satisfied with the current behavior, I will not be disabling it for the entire chapter.

I have disabled the default selection of auto-assignment for any new member joining STC. If a new member wants auto-assignment they have to make the explicitly select it. With our new system coming online later this summer we will also be looking at best practices for handling chapter assignment issues. Regardless of the approach we take (auto-assign or no auto-assign) the system will be designed in a manner to allow as much transparency, explanation of features and functions, and control of member records by the members as possible.

Regards,
Merrick
____________________________________
Merrick Bechini
Director of Information Systems
Society for Technical Communication
Whitney // July 18, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Hmmmm…just who were those 79 people? I rec’d no such e-mail from the STC. The only reason why I found out about the “poll” was reading Sean’s original post here.
STC-CT Webmaster // July 18, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Ouch. I wonder how many other chapter members did not receive the email?

Of course, questions asked are going to be, is the email address you registered with the STC still used by you, have you checked your SPAM filter, did you delete it by accident, and a host of other things.

I have requested a list of voters, NOT so I can bother them about their vote, but clearly these are STCers who are actively interested in their membership and I want the chapter to build on that. No reply on the request yet, though.