From: "Michelle Haines" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:52 PM 7/30/00 +0100, Julian and Jackie wrote:
>
> >But the solutions have not been discussed. I know that solutions
reached
> >with consensus will work 90% of the time. Solutions that are imposed
> >work about 15% of the time.
>
> I'm finding myself in strong agreement with Julian in all his recent
> emails on the subject. I would have strongly preferred at least a
> discussion about fragmenting the list before someone just DID it.
***** Julian's statistics apply to organizations of employees, I believe.
I think it's more complicated for other groups. I'd be happy to hear
about data for groups like GML.
It doesn't matter, however. Nobody can "impose" anything on GML readers.
Each decides, and each acts as he/she chooses. Those who are undecided
are swayed by people like you, Michelle.
GML has not been "fragmented". An option is open for test. Time will
tell unless GML leaders kill the trial.
>
> Also, despite what you seem to think, Bill, this is NOT a new problem
> on the GML. This is why the threadmarker system was incorporated into
> the Charter in the first place -- although then it was more because we
> had a lot of genetics intensive discussion and a lot of people weren't
> interested in that. Alas, it was an idea that has never taken off on
> this particular list, even though I cribbed it from a system that works
> just fine for us on a newsgroup I frequent. A perfect illustration of
> Julian's 90/15% statistic.
***** I've never pretended I knew GML history. I perceive here and now,
with a year's background.
The threadmarkers are a fine idea and they remain in GML guidelines. Why
aren't they used? I've suggested why, several times. They prove nothing
about Julian's 90/15% (which adds up to more effort than most
organization's exert).
We can deal with what we WISH, or with what IS.
respectfully --
... Bill
Save the GGMLEs!
