[pianotech] the fate of pianotech (OT?)

[Encore Pianos]

I'm not very much aware of how big such committees are within the Guild, so
I have no sophistication on committee dynamics  and cannot make a definitive
judgment of exactly what the best mix would be.  I don't think it should be
composed entirely of regular list users, but there should be enough people
on it to strongly represent the interests and particularities of those who
use the list regularly.  Likely, at least some measure of familiarity with
software so as to work towards a program that is easy to use for everyone,
including those with little sophistication.  People who have a clear sense
of what the software should do for the most people.   The interface should
be obvious and intuitive.  You don't have to be a software developer to know
if something meets that criteria, but you should have been around enough
programs to have some idea of the logic of a good interface.

I don't believe that our needs are particularly unique or sophisticated.
Much of what we need to do is pretty straightforward and not unlike how
other organizations with a technical forum would use it.  Probably 90% or
better is this simple bread and butter stuff, but HL handles these tasks
poorly and with too much complexity and still too many dead ends.
Certainly something with an easily accessible Help System for us barbarians.
The HELP!! System in HL resides in the Hodge Podge Lodge, it's in there
somewhere!!   The rest can be customized as needed.  

The most important criteria to me would be an extremely easy to use and
intuitively logical interface.  Put that together with the flexibility to
meet our needs,  and customization as necessary.  

I went online last night and slogged through the last couple of month's
worth of discussion about the List on PTG-L.  Despite the volume of
correspondence, I was disappointed in how little actual  discussion and even
less give and take there was about the merits and problems of Pianotech and
HL.  But when most of the people there are spending 95% of their time
carping, name calling, and indignantly debating side issues,  I guess
there's not much time for anything else.  Precious little time was spent
trying to move the discussion forward and actually do something meaningful.
For shame.  

Will Truitt


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Skolnik
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:32 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] the fate of pianotech (OT?)


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