From: "Julian and Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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.
***** SocialGML is NOT intended to change the nature of this group
meaning GML subscribers. Everyone in SocialGML is a GML member, and I
hope it stays that way. (I for one will try to be sure that SocialGML
subscribers know they should be receiving GML also.)
SocialGML IS intended to change the nature of GML content, in desirable
ways. SocialGML is not a threat to GML IMHO.
We can't ever say whether prior GML discussion would have made for a
better SocialGML. Obviously GML veterans feel they weren't consulted, but
that isn't a strong reason to shoot the baby.
As you know, Julian, two approaches to developing something new are: 1)
Thorough and lengthy design and specification; or 2) Build a prototype
fast so people can react to it, and then improve on what you've built.
SocialGML represents the second approach, which often is more successful
than the first.
Just BTW -- how much "design" went into GML when it was born? I believe
that your beautifully crafted Charter/Guidelines show that GML evolved,
and continues to evolve. GML was a baby once too.
>
> If such a discussion had resulted in a concessus that it was worth an
> experiment the experiment would have my full support.
>
> 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.
***** Please reconsider your positions. The only unilateral action was
that Deb Rebel set up a mail list to parallel GML. Then she invited
people to try it.
Preliminary experimental data: SocialGML has had 35 messages since 7/29.
(Plus another 17 old things that I posted just to get something into
archives for people to read.)
>
> 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?
***** I think everyone SHOULD see messages from both, especially you.
But even if they don't -- each list could evaluate after six months. On
GML it might be, Do we miss the social content that might have moved to
SocialGML? In SocialGML it might be, Shall we continue this list? Enough
people will participate in both discussions to ensure that the two lists
are communicating.
I can't predict what consensus would be reached in those two
iscussions -- but if they conflict, I'm sure that problem could be
worked out.
>
> If we are expected to subscribe to both groups, as Bill suggested, then
> what is the point?
***** YOUR time is one point. (Not specifically you because you are very
efficient in handling email.) I envision experts who will use GML as they
do now, but without so much social clutter. Then when they have leisure
time, they might enjoy reading SocialGML. -- and even look at photos
there if they choose. Please recall that it's quick and easy to subscribe
and unsubscribe from SocialGML, and it has an archive.
The other point is that SocialGML is an outlet for people who really want
to talk about how cute their gerbils are, or good gerbil names, or
birth/death events that are completely normal.
>
> 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.
>
***** Let's have that discussion now. Please start a GML thread, Julian.
In the meantime, people can look at SocialGML as it is learning its way.
So they have something concrete on which to comment. Please accept that
as a compromise that would be more useful than canceling the experiment.
If you want, I personally will forward every message in the discussion to
SocialGML to be sure it is read there. SocialGML prohibits cross-posting
to and from GML, but this topic prolly is an approved exception. Notice
that I'm sending THIS message to SocialGML.
