|
Good evening, folks.
Perhaps a bit of clarifying is
in order here.
As list co-moderators, Kathy
Seifert and I are very interested in continuing the thread titled "WOD
on MPR." Within that particular thread, different topics came up,
diverse perspectives were shared, etc. One of the more valuable
aspects of the "WOD on MPR" thread included ways in which WOD might
improve.
I hope we continue to talk about
how we might expand membership, assess what is working and what is not working,
encourage broader participation, consider quantity vs. quality issues, wrestle
with how to provide a civil and respectful format while still
championing free speech, and much more.
Within the "WOD on MPR" thread,
participants began a dialog about the general purposes of WOD. Then,
it segued into a sub-topic between two members regarding
alleged personal attacks in the past. Both wrote firmly and
professionally about their opposing interpretations. I agree
that neither writer had violated rules of the list.
However, after several
back-and-forths and copies of archived posts were used to fully explicate
each perspective, the sub-topic seemed to have run its course. Kathy and I
believed that the participants had reached an clear
impasse.
Our intention was to accomplish
exactly what Steve Kranz identified as one roles of the list moderators
- "to try and guide the discussion and make it more constructive."
Perhaps the re-direct was
misunderstood by readers. If that is the case, we
apologize.
Roy Nasstrom is entirely correct
when he writes that democracy is not for select views only.
So............Kathy and
I are simply recommending a re-focus from the interpersonal
exchange (Yes, it was an attack/No, it wasn't an attack) back to the general
subject of improving WOD. Let's move forward.
Thanks,
Sharon Erickson
Ropes |
