From: "Julian and Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think a separate list is a terrible idea for the reasons I gave in my
> earlier e-mail.
**** [In your reply to the GGMLEs pronunciation thread? I think your
phone trouble meant some of your replies are out of sequence. I'll reply
here, and then to that one.]
Please suspend judgment and think of SocialGML as an experiment. Its
outcome is not yet known. Please give that experiment a fair chance --
and your personal support.
>
> I would like to point out that the current charter does not prohibit any
> sort of social chatter, and I would not have made many of the friends I
> have made through the list if it did. What it does do is encourage
> people to behave in a certain way, which some people have failed to do.
***** And the consequence has been that there has been less traffic of
informational value. More important, many knowledgeable people appear to
have decided that their efforts in GML are a waste of time.
And on the other side, people who want to be even MORE social (e.g., to
publicly express condolences, or to send a photo) feel constrained. If
people have trouble "behaving in a certain way", let's try a place where
there are fewer reasons to behave in a certain way.
So there is push and pull in GML. IMHO it is best to try a method to
increase the comfort level in GML for serious gerbil study, while also
increasing the comfort level in a place for pure socializing. Both places
are about gerbils -- but one focusses on non-normal situations and new
knowledge, and the other focusss on normal situations and how keepers feel
about them.
Here is my reasoning:
** GML becomes nearly useless without keen participation of people I'll
call experts (though that can include anyone)
** The experts have expressed frustration about abuse of their time, and
the difficulty of finding serious gerbils questions and info
** The fewer experts who participate, the greater the burden on the
remaining ones -- and therefore the increased frustration of THEM. It
is a downward spiral.
** Simultaneously, we've seen an increase in desire to be purely social.
** It would be preferred if everyone took the time to learn the basics
about gerbils, and where the good websites are, and even to read GML
Charter/Guidelines. But they don't and therefore they do not "behave in a
certain way". Since they won't read and remember, there is no way to
reach them. (Age has little to do with it IMHO.)
** The failed approaches to changing that situation have included:
public reminders; private email to coach or to admonish; and even public
posts to coach or to admonish. You cannot MAKE people read and remember
something if they don't want to. By its excellent nature, GML tolerates
almost any behavior (including mine) -- but that means there are no bad
consequences for misbehavior that selfishly intrudes upon others.
** Ergo, for purely practical reasons let's try something different. It
might take some initial tuning, and it might fail -- but IMHO the
present system doesn't satisy enough people.
Somewhere in the past few days I wrote: Good things like GML don't die
violently. They die of neglect.
> A social chat area will have a great number of posts concerning gerbils
> and their behaviour. As a veteran who is always interested in learning
> more about gerbils, I never forget that much of what I know has been
> gathered from studying how other's gerbils behave. My point is that
> serious discussion, and social discussion can not be totally divorced.
*** Agreed. BUT -- now you can budget your time to deal with
emergencies and important issues. At your leisure you can read peoples'
observations of behavior.
(Please remind yourself constantly, Julian, that your emailer and skills
are much more powerful than almost everybody else's. What you can do with
email in an hour might take someone else three hours -- even if English
is their first language.)
>
> Before the term GML is used in the name of another list, I would have
> thought it would have been a good idea to get some sort of democratic
> agreement as that is how things are usually done here.
*** That might have been preferred. The active person who set up
SocialGML did act unilaterally.
IMHO Deb Rebel thought, Let's just try something. IMHO she was right.
You and I can discuss in GML (using verbal skills) -- but most people
prefer to experience something to decide if they like it or not. That's
why most new cars are sold after a test drive rather than after reading
specifications and consumer reports.
SocialGML will need tuning based on experience. Changing its name to
remove "GML" could be done. IMHO the name connotes exactly the intent.
As to "democratic", what better way to take a vote or find consensus? If
nobody uses SocialGML, that's a clear democratic vote. If it fails for
other reasons, another vote taken. If it has undesirable side-effects for
its parent GML, that would be a different problem and we can
democratically deal with it when it arises.
If it is thought
> by the majority that we should prohibit social chat here then I suggest
> that the first step should be to get the charter changed. Until it is
> changed, by the consent of the users of this list, then there is no need
> to go anywhere else.
*** Disagree. Nobody wants to eliminate social chat (least of all me).
Some would like to see MORE social chat etc.
Changing the GML Charter to reduce social chat can be done -- but only
if there is another outlet for social chat. We don't know yet how GML
Charter ought to be be affected.
Let me emphasize that. GML and gerbildom have at least two aspects --
informational and social. Both are important. Their tugging in GML
causes strains, including IMHO things that drive away the experts that we
absolutely depend upon.
So let's try TWO lists:
** GML, mainly for information and unusual gerbil situations
** SocialGML, mainly for socializing about normal situations
The only risk that I see would be when questions come up in SocialGML that
should be handled by experts rather than slightly experienced keepers, or
people willing to research websites. If such a question appears, I'd
suggest that SocialGML find a way to stop discussion there and move it to
GML.
IMHO the primary goal is to allow people to budget their time more
conveniently.
>
> I would also like to suggest that rather than attempting to change the
> character of this list, a far more successful proposal might be to set
> up a separate list for asking questions to encourage quick response from
> experts.
***** The character of GML already has changed. That has created a
problem.
Emergency questions already are flagged in GML with Subjects like Help and
Emergency and :SOS. Sometimes those aren't true emergencies but the
worried keeper doesn't know that. Asking experts to look at an Emergency
list wouldn't work IMHO, for a variety of reasons.
But your idea certainly has merit and perhaps a THIRD list, EmergencyGML,
could be tried also. I think the experts should decide about whether to
try.
>
> Right now I call on people not to move discussions elsewhere unless they
> are not applicable to the agree charter. If people want to encourage
> change of this list there are ways of doing it without taking unilateral
> action.
>
> Recently I spent a lot of time thinking about how we can make the GML
> serve our users better, and fragmenting the list without proper
> agreement is not one that had occurred to me.
>
> My bottom line is that I do not propose to subscribe to a further
> mailing list, and I encourage people to stay here.
>
And I encourage you -- always a fair person -- to reconsider. You can
help SocialGML as an experiment, or you can doom it.
Please revise your position. If you must, say "I'll support SocialGML for
X months. Then let's discuss how things are working."
[BTW -- isn't THIS kind of discussion exactly what you like to see in
GML?]
... Bill
Save the GGMLEs!
