Gary Richmond wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
[...]
>>I thought that we already had a separate list to talk about tools,
>>the tools-yak list.
>>
>>And I suppose this raises a question for me: is this list a *place*
>>where we talk, or is an attempt at a circumscribed discussion only
>>on specific subjects (where we are requested to stay only on subject)?
>>It can be either; this is up to the list owners. It would be nice to
>>know. Either approach creates a very different atmosphere. I prefer
>>the place approach myself, even if it is noisier, as it's more like
>>real life. One is good at buiding tools, the other is good at building
>>a sense of community. (That's why I thought we had both here.)
>
> I suppose I prefer something in between, a *place,* but for circumscribed
> discussion, where not "anything goes." What's the advantage of
> discussing religion and art aesthetics, say, on a list primarily--I
> thought--
> directed toward the development and use of tools and systems of tools
> in the interest of e- and other collaborations? Eugene's questionnaire
> seemed to reveal enough common interest in collaboration-related themes
> to keep us busy for years while at the same time developing community.
>
> Just my 2 cents as I haven't been yaking all that long myself. (01)
Gary, (02)
My attitude on this is that active, healthy communities often
tangent off on various discussions, which IMO are part of that
health, not a detriment to it. I'm not sure where one draws the
line between development of tools for healthy collaboration and
issues surrounding religion and art aesthetics, nor would I
want to see anyone do so. There's a responsibility that I don't
frankly see met very often of taking those tangents off into new
threads so that they can be properly ignored by those not
interested, which is a feature of email that is not used enough. (03)
We all have browsed threads whose contents don't match their
subject headings. If we were to (as a group) agree to try to begin
new threads when this happens, I don't see the harm -- it's easy to
ignore a thread if it's labeled appropriately, and I really hate
to see attempts at circumscription of the communiqués of a growing
community -- as I said, it's not very community-building to tell
people to keep quiet about things that naturally come up in
conversation, or for people to always have to worry about whether
what they're interested in discussing isn't going to be censored
either by the moderator or the group as a whole (via either public
or private complaints). Forinstance, right now you and Peter are
discussing philosophy, which isn't appropriate to the literal
subject of this list, but I find it interesting. Should you guys
be forced to take it offlist or not? Or should you just change the
subject heading? (04)
So... if we were to try to be more disciplined about appropriately
labelling our tangents, would anyone be actually against allowing
those discussions to move forward, a list where anything not
strictly about collaboration is verboten? Or can we feel free to
yak? (05)
This is certainly up to the list owners to decide, I'd just like
it clarified so we all know where we stand, whether we can discuss
various issues here or if we should take it elsewhere. (06)
Murray (07)
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK . (08)
Empty handed, holding a hoe,
Walking, riding a water buffalo,
A man is crossing over a bridge;
The bridge, not the water, flows.
-- Mahasattva Fu, The Blue Cliff Record [96] (09)
http://www.religion1.com/Blue_Cliff_Record_0877736227.html (010)
--
This message is archived at: (011)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=401FFDE4.4050101@open.ac.uk (012)
|