Perhaps surprisingly (given my status as a card-carrying apparatchik) I am going to disagree on the subjects of list moderation and the use of the list for gauging the opinions of GFA members..
I believe in free speech, and as a result I have to ask "who moderates the moderator"? I have a thick enough skin to ignore the occasional serve that comes my way, and to sift the list for the good stuff and my delete key takes care of the rest. I appreciate the freedom that the list gives for all to have their say in whatever way they wish, and I willingly defend their right to have that say. I've yet to see a bully on this list - not a successful one, anyway. I am opposed to aus-soaring being used as a gauge of GFA members opinions. While it has 313 members, as Robert says there is no indication as to whether these people are GFA members, or even glider pilots. Some of them may simply be interested spectators, and those spectators may have all kinds of motives. Not all of them may be our friends. Further, I seriously doubt whether this list can be representative. As with most lists of this kind it will be biased towards those with an interest in technology, and the time to spend monitoring it. It probably attracts the younger end of the demographic (Robert and I are exceptions) and it does not appear to have a strong showing of competition pilots. The statistic show also that the majority of contributions come from a very narrow group. Last month one contributor managed close to 10%, 13 people contributed 50% and 29 made more than 75%. There is no information at all about the membership status of these 29. This suggests that we are hearing from a very small group of people. Not the lists fault of course, but if the GFA were to take this as a sample of opinion, I am not sure it would be very representative. If the GFA wants to set up a moderated list open only to members then I'll support that. But I like aus-soaring just the way it is. Cheers Tim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Rowe Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2007 22:44 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Scoring on aus-soaring Gday Robert, My opinion is that "open" forums allow inaccurate information to enter the space, thus a semi controlled forum (moderated) like you are recommending is a great communication method that is very easily maintained using mostly technology rather than manpower and hardware. The biggest gain is correcting issues live, instead of heading them off a month later in the magazine. Most Government departments now use electronic medium as the sole means of disseminating information and this has had a very strong push behind it from government, to remove the beaurocratic faults (one mans opinion should not make a standard). Aus-soaring has some fantastic debates on very valid issues, but, left un-checked we are starting to see cyber bullying (yup just like the teenagers at school) and missinformation creeping in, a semi controlled forum would certaily be a great place to chat with like minded mates all over the country all year round. Control doesnt have to mean censored. I also believe it would allow a more democratic system to allow members to vote or voice opinion than what currently exists. The GFA is still pretty good at this when you take into account that it's a 60 year old entity, but times are a changing and we do need to, at minimum, keep up. The reality is we are at a complete contrast to our membership base, ab-initio is pretty much all hands on and no technology whereas at competition level, high tech rules. A correctly set up forum would allow all punters to see into all facets of the sport. Keep up the good work Robert. Cheers Mark > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:41:24 +1000 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Scoring on aus-soaring > > Tim Shirley wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I bet you didn't think that it was possible to score on this list... > > > Thanks for this Tim - and Mark. > > With 313 subscriptions, that places Aus Soaring at about 10% of the GFA > membership. I say 'about' because > > * there are people on this list that I know are not GFA members (but > who do fly gliders) > * there may well be people on this list that are not GFA members and > do not fly gliders > > and so allowing for this non GFA membership part of the subscriber list > in a generous fashion suggests that about 10% (probably a bit more) of > GFA members are on Aus Soaring. > > Over the years there has been fairly significant opposition within the > GFA management to credit Aus Soaring with being any sort of barometer of > opinion. This has probably been due in part to some fairly spectacular > flaming of the GFA management here. Despite this, Aus Soaring always has > been 'monitored' by the GFA management and it has had some effect (not > always what was desired) on GFA management opinions. > > What I now see within the GFA management (I have been a part of this now > for 12 months as Qld board representative) is a recognition amongst a > growing number of the GFA management that electronic communications > offer significant potential to assist the GFA (ie all of us - the > members) to improve communications amongst us and reduce overheads - to > our mutual benefit. > > This brings up a couple of interesting points that I would like to hear > from Aus Soaring about... > > 1. Moving to electronic communications has a potentially significant > downside as I am certain that not all GFA members have an email > address. Whilst the move to electronic communications will > certainly not be 100% in the foreseeable future (eg the magazine > will remain hardcopy although articles will probably appear on the > web site some time after publication), what do we do about members > who do not have Internet access? In one conversation it was > suggested to me that everyone can get an email address (gmail, > yahoo etc.) and Internet access is readily available through > public libraries, so I should not worry about this - but I do. > > 2. One of the reasons we are switching the GFA web site to a content > management system is that it allows us (fairly easily) to add new > capability such as web fora. This would allow the web site to host > a range of discussions aimed at serving the general membership as > well as specialised groups (such as instructors, coaches, club > development officers etc.). I am interested in what people here > think of this? For example, would a general membership disscussion > group replace Aus Soaring - and if it does where would that leave > our non GFA aus soaring contributors? What do people feel about > specialised discussion groups - and what would be the benefits and > problems of such groups? > > Looking forward to reading comments. > > -- > Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _____ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now! <http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sou rce=wlmailtagline>
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
