I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can
tell you that I won't be persuaded, just based on how the action was taken.
It was done without any discussion or a chance for input from veteran list
members by someone who is relatively new to the list and to gerbils, IIRC.
As for myself, I would easily classify myself into the "pure expert"
category- not based on what I KNOW already, but where my interests lie and
what I hope to learn. I have no social interest at all in this list. I read
the first post of almost every topic and decide from there what I will
follow. If it is social in nature I delete any responses to it, if it's
about genetics I delete it because I know I can't help :-) I'm not saying
this system would work for anyone but myself, it's just my approach.
I also agree that this is not a new problem- in the 2 1/2 years I have been
reading and filtering messages, nothing of late has required a change in my
reading tactics, or time spent dealing with GML emails and from that I
conclude that the list itself hasn't changed all that much.
Isn't it possible, also, that the list itself isn't deserving of so much
blame for the change in frequency of the "experts"? True, maybe some people
are unhappy enough with some things to sign of, but I don't think that
accounts for everything. Things happen in lives, situations change, jobs
change- we have no way of knowing or accounting for any of these factors
related to the people who no longer post much. I know when I start vet
school, I anticipate having near zero time to surf the web and belong to
email lists as I do now.
That's all for this go around,
Jill
----------
> From: Bill Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Social List and GML
> Date: Sunday, July 30, 2000 4:07 PM
>
> From: "Jill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > I am in full agreement with Julian- that is what I was trying to
express
> in
> > my post yesterday but I think I was too aggravated to do it coherently.
> >
> > It is possible to deal with all topics effectively right here, and I
> agree
> > that the unilateral action was inappropriate. That is my vote.
> >
>
> Good and thoughtful points, Jill, except I disagree that a unilateral
> experiment was inappropriate. You do not have to subscribe to SocialGML.
> Only time will tell you whether you should.
>
> Let me point out a couple things supported by scientific data (which you
> would understand if I had any, because of your professional studies).
>
> ** As Julian says, people interested in gerbils approach them from many
> directions. More people are interested in gerbils (yay!) so the
diversity
> of keepers also has spread.
>
> ** To simplify, I use terms like "expert", and "information" vs.
> "socializing". It's much more complicated than that, of course. Let me
> invent new terms: "pure expert" vs. "pure petowner and social person".
> Both are in the gerbils community, and both are responsible for the care
> of animals -- which after all, might be the most important thing.
>
> ** GML has grown, but not as rapidly as gerbils can reproduce. (*smile*)
>
> ** More diverse gerbils interests appear in GML.
>
> ** GML beautifully serves the people who find that GML serves them well.
> (Please think what I just said.)
>
> ** You and I are in the middle population of gerbildom's humans.
> Julian's Charter and Guidelines serve us very well.
>
> ** But you and I do not represent the extremes toward "pure expert" or
> "pure social person".
>
> ** Data shows that pure experts become dissatisfied and either leave GML
> or stop writing very often. IMHO, without the experts GML loses its
> principal reason for being -- talking about gerbils and their care and
> breeding.
>
> ** Data shows that people often unsubscribe from GML. I guess that
their
> needs aren't being met.
>
> ** Data shows that pure social persons also are frustrated. They want
to
> share their personal happiness or sadness with everyone, but GML today
> cannot support all that traffic and it would become worse if GML grows.
>
> ** So you and I might be satisfied, but people at "extremes" are not.
>
> ** IMHO GML is a model of the best kind of (international) Web
community.
> I think nobody wants to drive away other gerbils lovers. GML has nice
> informal processes for shaping itself -- and sometimes for healing
> itself.
>
> So IMHO, GML can stand pat and continue to hope everyone can crowd into
> the middle like us. Or GML can sponsor a parallel email list with a
> different emphasis, to see if a wider range of gerbils interests can be
> served.
>
> ... Bill
> Save the GGMLEs!
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
