Thanks Ed. I'll point my eyeballs at ptg-l too. Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ed Sutton Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:18 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L Will- The Ptg-L list is not limited to Council Delegates. It is limited to PTG members. If you are a member, you can subscribe and post. The Ptg-L list is a discussion list for PTG politics and management issues. Topics which will be discussed at Council are often discussed at length on Ptg-L. It is a good way to get your opinions heard by PTG members who are active in these matters. Council delegates are instructed to vote according to the direction of their chapter members. The best way to influence PTG policy is to discuss these issues in your chapter and profvide direction to your delegate. Another way is to participate in discussion on Ptg-L, in order to thresh out complex issues and express viewpoints in advance of Council. There are also the caucuses in which regional VPs are elected. Board meetings are open to all members as well. The more members will participate in these venues, the more PTG policy will reflect broad member opinion. It ain't perfect, but it's not a smoke filled room behind closed doors. (You can also write letters to the editor of the Journal, but given the lag time of paper publishing, it will take a few months for the letter to be published.) The my.ptg site has its problems, but it's where the discussion is happening. Kansas City is not equidistant from every member, but that's where Council is this year. When I first subscribed to pianotech, I didn't have a computer. I had to go to the library and have the librarian do it for me on the public computer so I could read the list. I found a job on the pianotech list! The job came with a computer, and they paid me to learn how to do email. Ed Sutton ----- Original Message ----- From: Encore Pianos <mailto:encorepianos at metrocast.net> To: pianotech at ptg.org Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L Hi Dale: May I call you Dale? Please call me Will. I wasn't making any statement comparing quantity and quality by sharing the statistics that I garnered from the archives. I didn't have time to reread 5000 messages in the time period quoted and compile content lists piano and non-piano. Even surveying the subject titles and doing that would not be accurate, as we both know how the subject can change from one thing to another (both piano and non piano related), yet the title remains the same. That has been a problem of message discipline for years and will likely not change no matter what the format for e-mail server. But my point about the decline in participation still stands, I think. The reason for that is that the statistics I quoted reflect both Pianotech Lists, the old and the new. And the very significant drop coincides with the implementation of the new forum software. Further, the overwhelming number of comments by List participants in the last few days - where they are articulating their concerns and feelings - support the contention that decline in participation is in response to the inadequacies of the new system. 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. On the one hand, I understand your point about topic segregation and what the various lists are for. In and of itself, that is not a bad thing and may be useful to help manage the list topics better. I am not unsympathetic to that aspect of it. But, like subject headings and message content, it is subject to the vagaries of member self-discipline as compliance is voluntary. Some will bother and some wont. That's just the way it is. I find the second sentence quoted above telling. You want me to have this discussion on ptg-l. But ptg-l is limited to council delegates, as you state here. Since I am not a council delegate, I cannot have this discussion on ptg-l. But I cannot have it on Pianotech either, since that is for piano related topics only. The logic of your argument then, is that there is no forum for my voice. Nor, more tellingly, for the hundreds?of messages in the last few days, no voice either, since most of them are likely not council delegates. The net effect of our voluntary compliance with your dictum is that we should swallow our widespread dissent and shut up. I am troubled by some of your characterizations about what software is in vogue at the time, and people wanting to adapt. As if our complaints are based on mere personal preference and we are too lazy to adapt to new ways of doing things. When things change, we should make the effort to adapt. But I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The key here is that the Pianotech Forum is based entirely on voluntary participation and compliance. If you want us to do things in a certain way - meaning those of you who will effect changes related to this forum - then you have the task of persuading us to do things in a new way, since I do not believe you want the forum to be used by only 10 members instead of 1000. And certainly one of the strongest measures of success would be how widely the Pianotech Forum is used by members. That means that those encharged with the responsibilities of finding and implementing new software should be looking for something that the members will like and want to use. That's not an easy task, as you are going to have to second guess what we will want to do. That said, some things will bring about a greater chance of success. The interface is where it all starts. Ideally, the software would be easy to use, consistent, reliable, and not buggy. Good interface design allows you to get from here to there in the fewest possible steps, when we are talking about the basic functions that all of us are going to do most of the time. There should be a consistent internal logic that makes usage seem easy and intuitive. The more you have to use Help to navigate a program, the less successful its design is. And the fewer your chances are for widespread adoption by a membership that will have to be persuaded that it is worth bothering. The Higher Logic program throws up roadblocks at the most basic levels of functionality. It's a damn pain in the ass to use, it's poorly designed, and has too many bugs - particularly for a program that should be mature and stable by now. And, acknowledge this or not, too many people have voted with their feet and ended or greatly reduced their participation in the forum. By that measure, it's a failure. But don't blame the victims. Yes, I am blaming the loss of community on the difficulty of using the Higher Logic Software. If I were only one voice, that would make my dissent insignificant. But, change a few details, so have said the vast majority of respondents in the last few days. We are merely reflecting a very real problem with bad software, and we are complaining because we want a great forum that we fear the new software in effect is taking away from us. Dale, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and hope this discussion can continue between you and I, and others as well. Most respectfully yours, Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Probst Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:40 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L 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/20110702/2a11f92d/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC