[pianotech] the fate of pianotech (OT?)

[David Skolnik]

Will wrote:

>>If a study
>>committee is formed, at least one or two of the members should be composed
>>of people who actually are active participants on the Forum on a regular
>>basis.

Why just one or two?  What should such a committee look like?   How 
large can it be before it becomes totally unwieldy?  How small before 
it looses credibility?  Ironically, one of the first questions for 
the committee would be whether to do their on-line communication 
through mailman or HL.

Right behind you on the way down.

David Skolnik
Hastings on Hudson, NY



At 10:55 AM 5/31/2012, you wrote:
>I'll try to make my point simply.  I think a study committee should be
>formed to seek a good quality replacement for both Pianotech and the Higher
>Logic program.  Pianotech is very long in the tooth and can't be expected to
>last forever.  Although the HL program has improved somewhat in the past
>year or so, the majority of members have chosen to continue to use Pianotech
>because it is simply much easier to use and do most of what we want it to
>without too much muss and fuss.   Muss and fuss is HL's middle name, and
>HL's commitment to making needed improvements and bug fixes is marginal at
>best.
>
>If Pianotech  is dropped, leaving us with only the HL program, we will have
>painted ourselves into a corner and we will be stuck with it, no matter how
>poorly HL meets our needs.   That would have a very negative effect on the
>vitality of the Forum, damping participation by members.
>
>If dropping Pianotech is brought to a vote, it should be tabled.  If a study
>committee is formed, at least one or two of the members should be composed
>of people who actually are active participants on the Forum on a regular
>basis.
>
>Will Truitt
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
>Of Ron Nossaman
>Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:17 AM
>To: pianotech at ptg.org
>Subject: Re: [pianotech] the fate of pianotech (OT?)
>
>On 5/31/2012 8:00 AM, Mike Spalding wrote:
> > List,
> >
> > We are assured by President Jim Coleman Jr. that the Council will not
> > be voting on the future of the Mailman list. I've copied our
> > correspondence below. :
>
>Somehow, "I don't expect it" doesn't qualify for me as reassuring at this
>point, most likely followed in July by, "It's a done deal now, if you wanted
>something different, you should have.." (insert pointless "suggestion").
>We'll see.
>
>
> > I apologize for the extended unwrapped lines in part of this string -
> > I copied and pasted from H/L and the formatting got wacked. Go figure.
>
>A mystery, everyone baffled.
>Ron N