[pianotech] The Real Mailing List Issues - in my opinion

[David Skolnik]

From: 
<http://my.ptg.org/PTG/Communities/ViewDiscussions/MyBioView/?ContactKey=91b8b911-5d1e-4b95-a963-376828970602&MDATE=%3a48547567&UserKey=91b8b911-5d1e-4b95-a963-376828970602>David 
Skolnik
To: 
<http://my.ptg.org/PTG/Communities/ViewDiscussions/DigestViewer/?GroupId=121&MDATE=%3a48547567&UserKey=91b8b911-5d1e-4b95-a963-376828970602>PTG-L 

Posted: May 30, 2012 11:15 AM
Subject: The Real Mailing List Issues - in my opinion


This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: User 
Help Group and PTG-L .
-------------------------------------------
I have, with reservations, cross posted this to PTG-L and User Help 
Group, as the discussion is floating between the two.  I will also 
'cross' post it (i.e. copy'n'paste) to 
<mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>pianotech at ptg.org.  My reticence derives 
from two concerns.  First, cross-posting is inherently confusing 
since, as Keith recently pointed out, responses are not cross-posted, 
ultimately producing parallel conversations.  Second, the mailing 
list discussion(s) inextricably mingle aspects of technology with PTG 
organizational issues, Fred's disclaimer not withstanding:
I have little interest in analyzing in this thread how good or bad 
the decision-making process is within PTG. That is a topic for a 
separate thread

Since the thrust of this post is, in fact 'organizational', I suspect 
that any responses would be most appropriately directed to PTG-L.

I know some think it tiresome of me to continue to harp on this, but 
I do so to point out a certain structural absurdity.  How do we have 
a conversation (actually, multiple conversations, even within one 
subject) where half of the information is theoretically of a 
restricted nature (members only) and the other, not?

At the same time, Fred and Israel, perhaps Keith (and, of a few 
minutes ago Alan Gilreath), are content, in an assortment of 
explanations, with the de facto distortion of the true nature of 
member representation, not only in the conversation, but, more 
importantly, in the mechanations of the decision process.

Fred is right.  It is a separate topic, however, at a month and a 
half away from Council, it is THE topic.
Fred said, in the portion of any earlier response on PTG-L directed 
to my contention that the discussion was "presumptuous and unilateral" :
it is your job to promote your ideal, not mine
If by this he means making myself clear, he's right.   So let me try 
to be clear.  The appropriate venue for the  the debate is NOT 
self-evident, given that:
a) actual membership engagement with modes of digital communication 
are balkanized (<mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>pianotech at ptg.org unrepresented)
b) intertwined involvement of PTG organizational issues challenges 
ability of discussion to observe appropriate boundries. anywhere 
other than PTG-L.
c) the impulses and proscriptive protocols that produced the 
Convention controversy earlier this year have not disipated.

As I had previously suggested, right before it became obvious that 
the issue that did not even get distributed in the formal council 
literature was, in fact, going to be very definitely ON the agenda, 
the technological discussion should be able to take place:
a) inclusively
b) without the threat of imminent action

This is some of the context that I was referring to when I suggested 
that Fred had quoted me somewhat selectively.

<mailto:Pianotech at ptg.org>Pianotech at ptg.org  (mailman) members have a 
singular responsibility at this point.  You don't have visibility 
unless you enter the 'forbidden' land of the HL forums, to access 
PTG-L, which, for members, is your 'birthright', so to speak.  Even 
once there, it's one thing to read, and certainly another to express 
ideas, as there are some who are quick to disparage.  The alternative 
would be to communicate by phone and / or by email with:
a) your delegate (do you all know who that is, at this point? As of 
last week only 1/3 of chapters had certified.)
b) your RVP (they are listed on page 2 of every PT Journal
c) your PTG executive committee (President, Vice-President, 
Secretary/Treasurer, also listed on page 2 of Journal)

I don't encourage engaging in organizational discussions on 
<mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>pianotech at ptg.org, as someone is, sooner or 
later going to call the 'appropriateness' question, but you can 
certainly post that you have made the effort to communicate to some 
of the above.  To me, the question is only tangentially about the 
mailing lists.  It's mostly a question of wether you believe you have 
a voice in your organization.  Ultimately, your right to that voice 
is the product of excercising it.


David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120530/bb41bb9e/attachment.htm>