Well this has been interesting, hasn't it? I was just wondering a couple of weeks ago when we would have our next vetting. Generally, we seem to ask these kinds of questions - often accompanied by passionate debate - shortly after the pace of summer and fall fishing slows and then again in early spring in anticipation of another season.
One of the things that has always heartened me about this list is the willingness of the membership to periodically reexamine the issues and redefine itself by a renewed affirmation of basic principles. This is not to be taken for granted. I've been involved over the years in many other lists, or other similar venues, and have seen many of them explode through discord or implode from apathy. It can be unsettling to raise these issues, and many feel threatened by the things being discussed. Fortunately, this list has long been distinguished by a civility manner, rare in these venues, that makes constructive discussions possible and renewed purpose to the list an ongoing thing. This lurker thing has come up about once a year since the list was formed in the fall of 1996. Actually, I believe I was the one to first raise the issue, based on a sense of unfairness that Leland and a few of the other early list members were doing all the contributing, while the hundred or so other members were selfishly standing by, benefitting from the knowledge shared without sharing their own experiences and information. I was extremely surprised - and gratified - to see an almost universal condemnation of any suggestion for restricting the membership - with the strongest support for open, unrestricted membership coming from the most active, and generous, members. Several members have cited compelling arguments for leaving the list as it is. I could cite several more. The bottom line is: It's worked this way for the last five years; why change it now? Members come and go. Some sign up and become prolific posters right off. Some sign up and never post a thing; dropping off the list weeks or months later when their email addresses change and messages to their ISP start to bounce. Posters become lurkers and then posters again. In the end - and at any given time throughout - the list's vitality is sustained by the mix, not the individuals. We should all be thankful for the generous few who contribute the most, and be willing to recognize that not all are able to contribute equally. Since my first broaching this subject all those years ago, I've come to realize that the list is in many ways no different than any other volunteer organization. People bring what they're willing to give and contribute as they're able. You cannot regulate equality or impose the generosity of spirit that makes some people contributors and others lurkers, any more than you can enforce that all members become knowledgeable and have experiences and information worth sharing. All you can hope is that those who are knowledgeable and willing to share are recognized as the selfless souls that they are. I don't think there is any reason why we can't take the time to recognize another's generosity by sending a thank you for a particular post or even commending another for ongoing contributions to the list. I think this would be a lot more constructive - and invigorating - than banning members who - for whatever reason - are unable to contribute themselves. Again, I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to post their thoughts on this issue. I've been in a bit of a funk lately; not getting in a lot of fishing time and even questioning how much interest I still have in fishing and, indeed, maintaining the list. This discussion - and the support expressed for the list (and concerns for the interests of the other list members) has really made my week. Heck, maybe I'll even go fishing this weekend! -Wes > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Lurkers > > > This issue came to my mind the other day vie-sa-vie the 'where > have all the > reports gone' thread. Obviously this list is evolving from it's earlier > structure, and folks are curious what that means. > > Can we tinker with it and conform it to our desires (i.e. > passwords and post > or perish)? I'd guess no more than we can tinker with nature and > have it work > out the way we foresee. It might be better to adjust our own > expectations and > needs rather than try and fix something we can't really control. > > My own experience was coming to the list from finding something in the > archives and I suspect plenty of new members come that way. I > don't lurk it's > not my way so I jumped right in, but it may not work that way for > others...it > might take a while. > > I thought this was a very interesting statement; "The list is > only as good as > the information that subscribers post to it. If lurkers don't > contribute to > the group, their absence won't be felt." > > The first sentence is the golden rule of internet boards/lists. > The second > sentence is also very true yet so is its omission. Their absence and > potential contribution won't be known either. If we want a > vibrant group then > we will need new members, some will contribute and some will just > lurk, so be > it. > > If you want it back the way it was, just start a new invitation > only list but > you'll never get this Jeanie back in the bottle. PS if you do start a new > list invite me...I'd like to be on both. ;)) > > Have fun > Paul >
