Re: [IAEP] mailing list usage & business jargon, was Re: Back on Task... The 2017 Sugar Labs Mission Statement

2017-05-04 Thread Laura Vargas 
2017-04-28 16:06 GMT-05:00 D. Joe :

> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
>
> > Second... when you reply to an email, unless it is private SLOB business,
> > please be sure you have included iaep in the addresses.
>
> I would say: Include IAEP if it's IAEP business (and yes, so long as its
> IAEP business suitable for public consumption). We've seen a *lot* of
> crossposting recently between IAEP and sugar-devel that probably wasn't
> necessary, and raises the noise floor on both sides. It's always possible
> to
> forward something later, it's effectively impossible to unsend something
> (the growing pile of ineffective "recall" messages I've accumulated
> over the years notwithstanding).
>
> > Otherwise your messages look blank to everyone who isn't a SLOB member.
>
> I have no idea what this means. If you're not on the list of direct
> recipients (via any of the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: headers), and you're not a
> recipient via your subscriptions to one or more of the targetted mailing
> lists, you should see nothing at all.
>
> Seeing a "blank" message sounds like an error at some point in the mail
> delivery or display functions and less a question of addressing.
>
> You should either get the message, in full, or not at all.
>
> > Please understand, goals are NOT the same as objectives. They are much
> more
> > general. Objectives are designed to help achieve the goals and have a
> definite
> > form... who will do what by when, how will it be done and how will
> success be
> > measured. Goals do NOT have these elements!
>
> I would be much less inclined to reject outright prescriptive
> pronouncements
> like this if they were couched in some sort of context indicating in which
> school or schools of thought these words ("objectives", "goals") have these
> peculiar and limited meanings.
>
> The words have commonly understood usage that stray far beyond the
> strictures of the above assertions. I expect I'm not alone in my
> inclination to apply common usage.
>
> If one wants to make a case for working within a particular framework, then
> by all means do, but assuming the framework and making declarations from
> within it short-circuits a lot of the opportunity to build a common
> understanding.
>
> It seems particularly incongruous within a constructionist organization to
> make declarations like this.
>


I just wanted to make clear that Sugar Labs community welcomes and
encourages the exchange of ideas among all it's members but that doesn't
mean we -as an organization- endorse those ideas.

Caryl,

That said, I do agree the "instructionist tone"  and "working without a
particular framework" are improper for our community of learners.

I hope you can take the feedback as an opportunity for improvement.


Regards and blessings,
Laura V


>
> --
> D. Joe
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep




-- 
Laura V.
* I SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ Laura Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] mailing list usage & business jargon, was Re: Back on Task... The 2017 Sugar Labs Mission Statement

2017-04-28 Thread D. Joe 
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +, Caryl Bigenho wrote:

> Second... when you reply to an email, unless it is private SLOB business,
> please be sure you have included iaep in the addresses. 

I would say: Include IAEP if it's IAEP business (and yes, so long as its
IAEP business suitable for public consumption). We've seen a *lot* of
crossposting recently between IAEP and sugar-devel that probably wasn't
necessary, and raises the noise floor on both sides. It's always possible to
forward something later, it's effectively impossible to unsend something
(the growing pile of ineffective "recall" messages I've accumulated
over the years notwithstanding).

> Otherwise your messages look blank to everyone who isn't a SLOB member. 

I have no idea what this means. If you're not on the list of direct
recipients (via any of the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: headers), and you're not a
recipient via your subscriptions to one or more of the targetted mailing
lists, you should see nothing at all.

Seeing a "blank" message sounds like an error at some point in the mail
delivery or display functions and less a question of addressing.

You should either get the message, in full, or not at all.

> Please understand, goals are NOT the same as objectives. They are much more
> general. Objectives are designed to help achieve the goals and have a definite
> form... who will do what by when, how will it be done and how will success be
> measured. Goals do NOT have these elements!

I would be much less inclined to reject outright prescriptive pronouncements
like this if they were couched in some sort of context indicating in which
school or schools of thought these words ("objectives", "goals") have these
peculiar and limited meanings.

The words have commonly understood usage that stray far beyond the
strictures of the above assertions. I expect I'm not alone in my
inclination to apply common usage. 

If one wants to make a case for working within a particular framework, then
by all means do, but assuming the framework and making declarations from
within it short-circuits a lot of the opportunity to build a common
understanding.

It seems particularly incongruous within a constructionist organization to
make declarations like this.

-- 
D. Joe

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep