[pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L

[Dale Probst]

Hello Mr. Truitt,
 
I think you are equating quantity with quality both in the statistics on
number of posts and on the larger audience here on pianotech. I suggested
moving it to ptg-l because that is what that list is for- discussion of PTG
policies and procedures. That list is limited to members who will have
opportunity to change things at Council. Discussing it here is contrary to
the stated purpose of this list which should be about piano technology. You
are free to disagree but if you want to implement changes in PTG, I suggest
that you follow the policies and procedures that have been developed by the
membership for implementing those changes. You may get a lot of "attaboy"
and "me too" here but unless those folks follow up with their delegates to
Council, this is as far as you will get. 
 
I know I'm in the minority here, it's fine, been there before. I' started on
the list before it was even a list and was still on a bulletin board. I've
seen a lot of people come and go. I've didn't post much when I was on the
Board because I was reading the list from the archives and it was a pain.
So, I know what it feels like to be shut out from the list by software I
could not deal with. 
 
Pianotech as a community will exist no matter what the software is in vogue
at the time. People will come and go, things will change and some won't
bother to adapt. But if it's truly a valuable community, which I believe it
is, it will prosper no matter what inconveniences pop up. If you want to
keep this list stasis indefinitely all that is needed is a group of
volunteers to deal with administrations issues and a request for action to
the board. But be careful what you ask for, it's been relatively easy so far
but then you would be getting into real work. Work that Andy Rudoff, Ron
Berry, Phil Bondi, Kent Swafford, Dave Porritt, Brian Lawson, John Baird and
others have done on their own time for years without complaining. 
 
You are putting the blame for the loss of community on the difficulty of
using the Higher Logic software. Just consider for a moment that the blame
may equally lie on the lack of substantial piano related topics on this
list. People will go where the content is, that's human nature. There have
been some decent discussions on the HL site and I hope to see more. And any
of you can go there and review them whenever you want. Or you can stay here
and do the work necessary to maintain this list. Or something else can
happen. But this community won't die because of a software issue. It will
only die if it becomes irrelevant to the people involved.
 
Mr. Truitt, whether that happens would be up to you and the other members of
this community, no one or thing else.
 
Dale
PS- I didn't respond to your post earlier because I wanted to think about it
before I replied, sorry it wasn't on your timetable.

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Encore Pianos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 5:07 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L(OT)



Hi Dale:

 

If I want to be heard by the most people, the pianotech list is the place to
go.  And judging by the flood of discussion, most people are quite content
to do it here for now.  

 

I must admit that, other than reiterating your point that this discussion
should be on PTG-L, you have chosen not to respond to my points and
questions in my message sent this morning.  I am disappointed.  I had hoped
for more of a dialog, because the dialog, regardless of who is "right",
educates us and moves us toward a consensus that belongs to all of us. I
don't own the truth or all the facts, nor do any of us.  Which is why the
fullest participation by the most people is the best way to move towards a
consensus as to what works and we can see what most of us want.

 

I am interested in the best solution, even as I have a strong point of view.
I don't have to be right, which means I can be persuaded if you are armed
with better facts and stronger arguments.   In the best world, that goes
both ways.  And we can do all of this with a smile on our face and avoid
getting into personalities.

 

Respectfully yours, 

 

Will Truitt      

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Encore Pianos <encorepianos at metrocast.net>
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 1, 2011 3:22 am
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L

Hi Dale:

 

With respect, I think that the discussion is taking place exactly where it
should - where the largest number of participants are going to read  it and
respond to it.  Given the huge number of posts on the topic of the new forum
in the past few days, clearly this is a topic of importance to many.  If it
were on PTG-L, likely far fewer people would be aware of it.  For myself, I
don't make a point of frequenting PTG-L and probably would miss a good deal
of discussion there.  I doubt that I am the only one whose reading habits
are like that. 

 

I simply do not understand what you mean when you say participation in this
listserve are down because fewer posts are on topic or piano related?
Keeping posts on topic has always been a problem with the old format, yet
many of those strings of posts ran incredible lengths and garnered many
participants.  Excepting the large response generated in the last few days
discussing the forum's future and shape, the number of posts period had
dropped dramatically once the new forum was implemented, even when you
combine the new and old formats.  Some statistics showing the number of
posts, taken from the archives that demonstrate the pattern of which I
speak:

 

January 2011 - 1872

 

February - 1480

 

March - 1139

 

April - 345

 

May - 235

 

Even taking into account the normal ups and downs of  participation, it
seems clear that the implementation of the new format hugely dampened
participation - from March to April, the drop was 70 percent.  In March,
there was a huge amount of discussion, questions, and complaints on the new
forum that swelled those numbers.  May's numbers were a mere 12.5% of
January's.  If you were to read all of the posts on this topic in the last
few days, it is hard to conclude anything but that there is broad
dissatisfaction with the new format.  Yes, there have been defenders who
have written in, but they are few by comparison.  So I don't believe that
your argument holds water.  

 

The workaround to keep the listserve going for a while would be good, while
PTG sorts this thing out.  I think we should not be putting any more time
and money into the migration into the new format until the direction we will
take is clearly established.  Many of us are for cutting our losses and
dumping the new format.  But that does not mean that we are simply against
any change.  I recognize and accept the problems that the old list has had
and will continue to have.  One solution in the short term would be to pay
someone to do the housekeeping of the old listserve, since we are paying out
money each month for the new format in administrative and other costs.  Your
point about the very hard work of volunteers is well made, but that said
doesn't make the Higher Logic program a good one, and does not change the
fact that it is so unsuccessful in attracting or holding participants that
it has greatly shrunken the use of the Forum by PTG members.  My interest is
in keeping the Pianotech Forum vital and healthy, which it is not presently.

 

I am all for finding a really good e-mail program that will meet all of our
needs and be widely accepted and used.  From what I know about the Higher
Logic program, it is used by other groups and has been around for a while.
So it seems telling that it remains very flawed and buggy, and the interface
is not likely to morph into something that listserve readers are going to
like and want to use anytime soon.  So, let's move on to something better,
after taking the time to do the research and testing to emerge with
something that most of us will like and want to use.  If that new program is
not something that can be integrated with the other new software, so be it.
It is more important to keep the Forum alive.

 

Will Truitt

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20110701/45e54eb2/attachment-0001.htm>