[CAUT] New Forum

[Don Mannino]

Alan and lists,

All of us know that making these kinds of software purchase decisions are complicated and difficult.  None of us "outsiders" know enough about the entire package to judge it - all we are judging is the e-mail list and forum software.  To put it in the modern vernacular, this sucks.

PTG needs to move forward to something better.  It can't be done in a week or a month.  But we need to stop spending time and money on software that the users do not want to use.  Because all of the volunteer time and organization money will end up for naught - it will not be used.

I feel very strongly that PTG should choose better software very soon, and let we who remain on the e-mail lists know that PTG is working to implement something better in the near future.  Work with the knowledgeable people in our organization to make it right, make it enjoyable, and restore PTG as the central place for people to go on the internet for piano technology.

The alternative is that all the work will be done to patch together the existing software, but very few people will use it.

I have exerpted some of Alan's message below, and inserted some comments.
Since this has to be a plain text message I can't easily highlight different writers' text, so I will take the time to do it with '>' marks.

>From: Allan Gilreath [mailto:noreply at egroups.ptg.org]
>Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 7:01 AM

> I have spent extensive time talking with a number of people on a 
> regular
basis and explaining the issues. When we held a class on the new system at
>WestPac we only had three people in attendance. When we met with a much
larger number at MARC we had some wonderful discussions about
> what can be accomplished and what still needs work. I have to admit, 
> that
as s volunteer too, there is only so much time in the day that is available
> and I still feel that everyone interested in the operations of PTG 
> should
participate. The various forums exist for participation, Council exists
> for participation, our old lists were created for participation (and I
still applaud Jack Reeves for his early vision), our website exists for participation.

We don't want to be sold on it, Alan.  We want it to work well.  That is all that is needed.

> An interesting item that I have discovered, and that Mr. Berry alluded 
> to,
is that there are many people who have never taken advantage
> of the member section of the old or the new website. 

Not germane to this discussion, but really - could it be that the member's area doesn't actually provide things that people want?  Sometimes we get so excited about things because they seem neato - but if they are not useful to us, it doesn't matter.
   
>Our archives and how they can be searched - the dedicated search 
>function
for our archives make finding the old post much easier    

Since it does not work yet on all forums, this does not help in this discussion.  But almost ALL new software has much better search functions, so pretty much anything we would move to would do this.  Improving search of old messages while making the software klutzy and cutting participation is not a positive step.  Only the old messages from the previous e-mail lists will be there to search.
 
>There have been a number of visionaries in our organization. Ron Berry,
Jack Reeves, Andy Rudoff, Kent Swafford, Phil Bondi, Dale Probst,
> and far too many more to mention. The list above hardly contains a new
idea; it's what has developed over the years. 

I wonder how many of THESE people really looked over the new software and gave their approval?

>20/20 hindsight is easy. It's ironic to me that so many people feel 
>they
would have seen any issues before they ever arose. 

Bad functionality was pretty obvious right from the start with this new software.  The complaints started right away, but most of us tried to be patient in the hopes that it would be reconfigured to do what we need and stop getting in the way.  Some things improved, but generally people just don't want to mess with it anymore, so participation has lagged.  It seems to me (and has been mentioned by others) that perhaps the usability of the discussion groups was not considered an important factor in the software purchase decision. Your lengthy post about the other advantages of the new software package serves to confirm that most emphatically.

All of us are understanding, I think, that mistakes can be made.  I sure make my share of poor decisions.  But the difference comes when we then decide what to do to resolve the problem we created.  Do we try to convince others that everything will be OK?  Learn to work with the shortcomings?  Or do we take action to resolve the complaints and move forward to a solution that works?  

Those who are being critical on this list are doing so to vent their frustration and annoyance.  A positive response with a move towards a real solution would be a good thing.  Saying "this is great software, it's what we are sticking with" will only discourage those who are participating.  So they (we) will conclude that it's not worth it and stop participating altogether.

Don Mannino