Hi Bev, Thankyou for your response.
The questions I posed were not put forward to challenge the use of netiquette on ambit but rather to raise the point of who should have a say in defining the guidelines the list operates by. It could be argued that all communicative processes are 'essentially' collaborative (whether or not that collaboration is reciprocated). My point, however, was not directed so much towards the content of messages passed on the list but rather as to the way in which the list is 'governed/managed' or 'practiced'. The question could be rephrased: does ambit operate according to collaborative (ie. democratic, 'open source') principles, or 'top down' (ie. autocratic) principles? The ambit netiquette was established prior to anyone joining the list. That's fair enough, it's an obvious practical step, but they have never been subject to review by the list membership. Several people on the list have made it clear that certain postings which have been criticised as contrary to the netiquette were in fact meaningful and useful to them. Also, some of these messages have produced quite fertile discussions (such as the CCA debate and some of Mark and Gair's postings). On one level my questions are perhaps trivial, this is after all 'only' a mailing list, but on the other hand they are fundamental to people's sense of 'ownership' of the list and participation within it. The netiquette defines a significant part of what ambit's identity is (even if it is only intended as casual guidelines rather than hard rules). Giving people a say in shaping the netiquette would fundamentally contribute to their sense of 'belonging' to the list. So when I ask is ambit a 'truly collaborative practice' my question is to what extent are the views and varying degrees of participation within ambit reflected in the list's identity and the way it is run? Are we a collaborative entity, integrating the views of the membership into our 'practice' or do we follow the top-down 'teacher - classroom (with unruly kids)' model which some people have caricatured it as, or is the list some amorphic flow building and dissipating with the whims of the members? If you like I am taking the list itself as an example through which to address this month's topic, particularly in regard to the notion of 'open source' practices which are outlined in the articles at http://chinatown.twenteenthcentury.com/uua/index.php/CollaborativePractices which you posted to this list when proposing that theme, and which opens with the following quote: "...artist's research into alternative forms of social organization is just as important as the traditional research into materials, processes, and products." The questions are not directed to yourself and Chris directly but rather to the list as a whole. best wishes, Si. ------------------------------------------------- a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive: http://www.mediascot.org/ambit info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write "info ambit" in the message body -------------------------------------------------
