[CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed?

[Bdshull@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi, Richard,

I'll be as brief as I can, since the Cal State Convention is happening, and 
I'm not done with the workday...  

I am grateful that we can "let it loose" here on PTG-L, that's a lot of the 
point of this list, we can go back and forth and we can pretty well assume that 
contributor's intentions are good, or they wouldn't be here in the first 
place.

For example, Israel and I will go back and forth with great vehemence, but I 
have no doubt about his commitment to the good of PTG, and I think he knows I 
want the best for the PTG too.  I consider him a friend, and if he's at 
Burbank this weekend I hope to look him up.   I expect to see Carl Lieberman there, 
and anyone who reads this list knows we don't see eye to eye on everything , 
but I consider Carl a friend, and an incredibly productive PTG contributor.

When we talk about the Associate member situation, some of us might decry it, 
but we're not "Associate" bashing.  The point of this list is to permit free 
discussion of PTG issues, so I hope you can tolerate it, too.   

I believe that this list's free-wheeling discussions benefit the PTG as a 
whole.  At the very least, it functions as a "pressure-release valve."   But at 
its best, it helps to develop ideas which can truly move our organization 
forward.  

Moratoriums just put off the inevitable.   They reduce problem-solving 
opportunities and suppress conflict-resolution skill-building.  They work for a few 
weeks, but I'm not sure they're good for the long-term kind of break the PTG 
had a while back.   Considering the months that this list can be inactive 
(self-regulating?), I think it's great that we DO work hard, at times, on PTG 
issues.

Off to some learning, some fun, some re-connecting with friends (Oh...can't 
forget to harass my RVP some, right?  OK Richard  I'll be nice to Jim)

Bill Shull  



In a message dated 2/8/2006 7:16:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, rwest1@unl.edu 
writes:
X-INFO: INVALID TO LINE
I like your email, Jim.  It helped clarify my thinking, anyway.  Your
three items are no longer at the top of my priority list for change.
That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement.  I have just
come to accept certain things.

1. Testing - We have a workable test and a great crew administering it.
Change will take place.  The committee will hear suggestions and work
with them to either accept and use them, or reject them as unworkable. I
believe the testing system we have in place is working, at least well
enough for me to be willing to let it be for awhile.

2.  Associates - We have a category system that has remained unchanged
for over 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned it's a topic of discussion
because of a few disgruntled members who can't leave it alone.  I can
understand the sentiment to some extent, but I see this as going against
the inclusive spirit of PTG and the value that Associates bring to this
organization.  There has always existed a misdirected punitive
inclination in PTG.  Fortunately that has never been a dominant
attitude.  We would be better focused if we aimed at marketing the
RPT rather than diminishing the Associate classification.  I won't
say any more about that because the discussion of Associates winds up in
pointless debate over category options, most of which have been rejected
in Council. This discussion is akin to debating how many angels will fit
on the head of a pin.

3. Categories - I would like to see more internal categories, but I also
think that our efforts should be more directed to marketing the RPT. And
until that is done, multiple categories are of less importance. I agree
with Israel that a plethora of categories will only confuse the public.
  Also defining the qualifications for other categories will take a lot
of work.  The rebuilder category, for example, has already been
investigated and there have been a whole lot of problems defined.

Therefore, my priority list starts with marketing RPT and spending
some money to do that.  Second on the list would be to expand our
educational publications, top to bottom.  Revise PACE, develop a
piano service textbook, that is better than Reblitz, continue to
refine the PACE checklist,  etc., etc.  I think PTG is in a good
position to address both of these items.

We had an informal moritorium on categories a few years ago.  I would
expand that moritorium to testing and Associate bashing.

Richard West

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/16/92/c9/7b/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--