From: Julian and Jackie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Julian and Jackie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Social List and GML
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:15:45 +0100
As the Social list is intended to change the nature of this group by
encouraging certain messages to be sent elsewhere, it impacts on this
group. In the past we have discussed changes before implementing them.
And it has worked quite well. Even if that was not the case it would
have been a simple curtesy to discuss it here first.
-->I can understand discussing a change to the list itself, such as
outlawing certain types of posts, changing the charter, etc. What I do NOT
understand is how anyone expects us to discuss something like this in a
civil manner when discussions usually get blown out of proportion and great
ideas get shoved aside. As for courtesy, I believe that providing a social
list provides just that, especially for those that do not wish to be bogged
down by social posts.<--
If such a discussion had resulted in a concessus that it was worth an
experiment the experiment would have my full support.
-->How can that happen if not everyone bothers to post a response? You'd
only be getting a small percentage of votes out of the entire GML subscriber
population. Why can you not support an experiment such as the SocialGML?
Give it a chance before hacking away at it.<--
I disagree in principle to unilateral experiments. Just because it is an
experiment does not make it justifiable not to consult the other users
of this list.
-->I'd call this discussion consultation of a sort.<--
It has been suggested that the experiment run for six months before it
is evaluated. What I want to know is how can it be evaluated unless
everyone sees the messages from both groups? If they only subscribe to
one group how will they know what is going on elsewhere?
-->The evaluation is simple. If a person wishes only to get information,
subscribe only to the GML. If a person wants both information and social
content, along with an easy way to divide time between the two, subscribe to
both. And I suppose that if someone wants ONLY social content, he or she
can subscribe only to the SocialGML. If the social content of the GML
reverts back to an acceptable level, or at least to a level that everyone
can agree upon, while the SocialGML flourishes as well, I'd say it's a
success.<--
If we are expected to subscribe to both groups, as Bill suggested, then
what is the point?
-->I don't think anyone is EXPECTED to subscribe to both. It's a totally
voluntary thing. That fact has been stated repeatedly. The SocialGML also
has an up-to-date archive, so you can always see for yourself how it's going
without actually subscribing.<--
I am not against a second list in principle, as is shown by some of my
other messages, but I firmly believe there are better ways of doing it
than has been chosen in this case. I strongly argue for this experiment
to be cancelled until we have had a proper discussion of how to use a
second list. Then give it a try.
-->Julian, if it weren't for the second list, I'd never have gotten to post
some stories about my animals. That second list gives me an outlet for that
sort of thing. If I were to post such a thing on this list, I'd get
reprimanded right and left. I don't want that, and I'm sure no one else
wants an inbox full of nothing but complaints. How can you or anyone else
call the second list a bad thing if it allows people to get things like that
out of their system and entertain other people?<--
--
Julian
************************************************************************
* Jackie and Julian *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* National Gerbil Society *
* http://www.gerbils.co.uk/ *
************************************************************************
-Kris
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
