Brian Lamb explains the difference between "open as in thought leader" and "open as in helping students". There's a lot of inside baseball in this but for anybody in edtech it is a must read. https://abject.ca/thought-leaders/

I initially wanted to tweet it out with something like "epic" etc etc. And I'll admit part of what powers the post is its vitriol and the way that deftly skewers the disconnect between people looking for ~~trends~~ and those working to help students and faculty through a PANDEMIC

And it's notable in its willingness to name names (which is funny since of course part of the running joke in it is thought leaders thinking they are being "subtweeted" whenever a discussion doesn't invite them -- well, here you go, you're all named.)

But one core argument is that open education thought leaders (look at me, subtweeting again!) are stuck in a circa 2011 dichotomy that practitioners are seven or eight years past.

The MOOC/xMOOC conflict of the early 2010s has become the Vietnam War of edtech, and for a lot of the elites that came to prominence at that time every development and decision is a referendum on it.

That's always bad and crippling, but the desire of thought leaders to see everything as being about 2011 takes on a level of absurdity at the current moment.

I mean, if you see putting protections on Zoom sessions as a walk back from "openness", or a desire for coherently structured classes as a "triumph of the xmooc" maybe your map of the universe has an odd center to it. (More subtweets!)

Like Brian though I'll and this thread by thanking all the people out there who have taught me to put care at the center of what we do, whether that care is in the form of structure or student voice.