As an evdl member, my vote is continue with the existing limitation on OT
items specified in the evdl charter, so that they do not dominate the focus
of the evdl, ... EVs.
IMO: fcvs are not Electric Vehicles (EVs) that can plug into the stable
electrical grid or an outlet the homeowner has powered of their own
electrical power. fcvs are Electrified Vehicles (has some EV
components/guts) and are the same as a hybrid (chemical-fuel powered, and
can not plug-in)
Why my vote to not change the evdl? Because:
- As David reminded us, there are many non-EV discussion forums/groups/areas
to discuss those topics that are defined as OT on the evdl.
If you want to discuss Apple-products, the non-Apple forum is not the
place to do that.
If you like to use Kodachrome film, the digital camera forum is not the
place to do that.
If you like to express your lobbyist joy of the smell at the La Brea
tarpits.org , the cleanair.org forum is not the place to do that.
Topics defined as OT by the evdl charter should be, and can easily be
discussed on other forums/groups/areas on the Internet.
- It is the EV that needs the help/assistance, as there are billion$ of
dollar$ being spent to kill them. Not needing help are the well funded h2,
fcv, or hybrids. Those have plenty of money behind them, and plenty of
forums to discuss them. The public has been pre-programmed to be clueless as
to what to do when it comes to EVs (I have a future post about that where
ice-heads are lost when it comes to making an EV).
- An EV interested/curious newbie coming to the evdl and seeing tiresome
excessive heated non-EV focused discussions might think, the evdl is not the
place to be asking my EV-conversion questions. There are still many people
doing their own conversions (I have future news items I will be posting
showing that).
And on many of those I have read, the new EV owner saying, "Yea, I got a
lot of help figuring out what to do by talking to the EV guys on the
Internet". Was that the evdl, possibly. Or maybe they came to the evdl
because the evdl is much easier to find, and learned of other
areas/local-groups/EV-component-sources to explore to accomplish their EV
goal (like the evdl is a well established EV-sign-post directing
EV-interest). We definitely do not want OT to dilute honest plugin EV
discussions, nor turn the potential EV builder away with disruptive,
counter-productive OT posts.
My first experience with Clyde's EV list was as a focus point for the
public to come and get the help they need to build an EV, because at that
time EVs were not produced, you either had to build your own, or have one
made by a converter (like I did). Remember there are many parts of the world
where building an EV as not off-the-shelf easy as it is in the U.S. If a
person wants to learn about EVs, the evdl has been the place for them to
come and discuss that for decades. Non-EV discussions dilute that EV-focus.
- Discussions of items defined as OT by the evdl charter which were decided
by previous evdl members, was done for some good reasons. Not only did the
OT discussions get 'tiresome', but nasty, which is another
turn-off/turn-away for people wanting EV help. evdl members decided to limit
'those' discussions by defining them as OT, and have them taken offline
quickly.
In its long history, the evdl has had many people come in and quickly want
to change a well established evdl. The last 'bout being about racing. While
small quick discussions are allowed, the heated, nasty, domination of the
evdl into the chaos of the past are not allowed. As there are plenty of
other places to discuss racing, the evdl limits racing discussions. Ergo, so
were other topics decided by evdl members as OT that need to be limited.
- The current evdl charter does not ban such OT discussions in passing, just
limit them to be taken off-line/elsewhere quickly. People do occasionally
drive too-close or over the white-line, but with a few honks from other
drivers know to stay in their lane. It is less about absolute-conformity (
nicht-EV verboten! ), but more about being focused with the EV-task at hand.
This flexibility allows for the occasional stray into OT land, but the known
evdl guidelines keeps most evdl discussions on-EV-topic, and not allowed to
disintegrate evdl discussions into a disruptive-troll's cesspool.
If you all will notice, the amount of h2/fcv discussions on the evdl has
exploded since the automakers have gone into production. I look at these
'forced' current h2 fcv discussions on the evdl, as an 'invasion of the body
snatchers'. That is, it is like the pro-h2 fcv guys want to take over and
dominate the evdl (here we go again!).
Anyone who has had pent up frustrations of not being able to discuss items
defined as OT on the evdl, should not take it out on other evdl member
because they either want take-over/destroy the evdl's EV-focus, or are too
lazy to go elsewhere.
{brucedp.150m.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVDL-biz-H2-and-FCEV-discussion-tp4670639p4670647.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
