David, Thanks for posting this and taking the time to put it all together. Al - High Point, NC On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:11 PM, David Skolnik wrote: > Sorry for the length.. It grew on its own. > > William - > I'm not sure when you first began to participate on the list, either reading or contributing, but I'd gently remind you that, in its origination and for many years thereafter, this list was independent of any connection with PTG, other than the fact that most of its participants were also PTG members, and guild related topics did come up. Ron K's quoted excerpt below suggests why there was often such misperception, even before the organization took more assertive 'ownership' of list communication. > > Further, it is true the there are still many members who are not subscribed to PTG-L, but that was the case, I think, even before the move to the new system. It's not that they don't care, necessarily. It might just be seem like more source of data overload. There are undoubtedly many others who remain daunted by the sign up process, or who have had technical difficulties, like Joe Goss described this morning. Tlhey can't access PTG-L. Then there are, as Ron K pointed out, list subscribers who are not members. You are mistaken to assert that this list was, in any way, weighted towards PTG membership. Those non-members have as much right to express opinions about the way this list functions, or dys-functions, as anyone else. > > Ron K's comments were on point, not overstated in expressing disappointment or exasperation at the illogic of the communication about the list being distributed only on PTG-L. I was too. I had sent the following to President Coleman this morning, when I first read his post to that list: > >> Jim - >> I would have copied that post to this list, but, given the recent concerns about protocol, I thought it best not to. I can understand that you would want to do all you can to encourage the membership to sign up and realize they have access to ptg-l, however, many of them are still not there, and there remain some subscribers to the old lists who are not members and would therefore not be aware of any information posted there. If you feel it inappropriate for you, in an official capacity, to post to pianotech at ptg.org, (and, I suppose, CAUT), perhaps you can authorize the posting of any relevant information. >> Thanks. >> >> David Skolnik RPT >> Hastings on Hudson, NY > > to which he sent this reply, received when I got home this evening: > >> David, >> I figured someone would repost. >> Feel free. >> -Jim > > so I am: > >> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:26:31 -0500 >> From: Jim Coleman <noreply at egroups.ptg.org> >> Subject: PTG-L: my.ptg.org and Mailman lists >> >> It is easy to understand why so many have written to me and the Board about the demise of the Mailman lists (Pianotech and PTG-L). However, from our standpoint, it is difficult to try to keep answering all of them because the picture is in a constant state of flux. >> >> What I can say for now is that as I write this post, we have four individuals who are close to the situation, in Wash. DC attending a forum with the Higher Logic folks. They are attending various classes, getting some one-on-one time with HL people and asking many questions. >> >> This is a fairly recent opportunity made available to us so we are taking full advantage of the Forum. >> >> In that light, we have decided to postpone the closing-down of Pianotech and PTG-L untill our folks get back and the Board, Staff, Kent Swafford and Jim Moy all have a chance to decifer all the information gained. >> So for now....Merry Christmas! >> Respectfully, >> Jim Coleman, Jr RPT >> President/PTG > > While it might be possible to assume that the parties have yet to get together to share information, it remains appropriate-seeming to me to update the community in a timely manner, given the level of consternation that this issue has generated. I hope something informative can be posted to the list tomorrow. > > David Skolnik > Hastings on Hudson, NY > > > At 03:45 PM 12/12/2011, you wrote: >> Right. The PTG provides and maintains the list, emphasizing my point. Why should non-members have a say in the disposition of the list? It doesn't mean their contributions are not worthwhile, but I just can't understand why organizational decisions should be directed by those outside the organization. Can you suggest a logical reason it should be so? >> >> WRM >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ron Koval <drwoodwind at hotmail.com > wrote: >> >> >From William R Monroe: >> <snip>I'm just growing weary of all the complaints from folks who refuse to be on PTG-L<snip> >> Interesting take on the issue of communication to the people on the list about whenthe list will be killed. >> >> In case you forgot: (from "about this list") >> The "pianotech" list, provided as a community service by the Piano Technicians Guild, is a forum for piano technicians. The list resides on the PTG server and is maintained by the PTG, but the PTG does not control the content in any way. The "pianotech" list is an open list, allowing anyone to subscribe or submit posts. >> The same cannot be said about PTG-L(and I AM subscribed to that list - there are others on pianotech that can't) >> Ron Koval >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20111213/b0db8d8a/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC