Al, Laura, I am once again reminded of the limitations of electronic communications. My intent was to lighten the mood, if not to be directly sarcastic. Lar, others, Since I've forced my own hand, my objections to the new system include: - First - For me, this is a philosophical/pedagogical issue; and not a political one. If the real intent of the guild is to promote the status of the rpt, provide instruction, develop testing, execute and evaluate such testing, provide credentialing, etc, and promote the status of the rpt (repetition intentional), then, it seems to me that providing the simplest, easiest, most inclusive and user friendly ways in which to accomplish those goals sets the expectation for what kinds of tools are used. That kind of position takes into account the fact that not all members of the ptg are rpts. More important for some of the other implicit goals of the organization, non-members have the opportunity to learn more about the actual activities involved in the profession, and such information might inform their decision as to whether or not to pursue membership or not. Further, as David Love has pointed out (and others have implied), some subscribers are international. If the list is limited to ptg members only, those folks are automagically disenfranchised and lose access to an important source of technical information. - Second, and closely related to the above - The "old" mailman/whatever EM list format makes, by the way in which it works, a _relatively_ "safe" space for "newbies" to ask questions. Only FWIW, I am active on a number of lists related to various professional groups, including several very high-level IT-related groups, all of whom have "Non-Disclosure Agreements" required for participation. All of these lists could be using a "forum" type format. None of them have opted to do so for the specific reason that there is an explicit (as well as implicit) understanding that not all subscribers are at the similar levels of knowledge, experience or expertise. In those settings, it is not at all unusual for the "newbie" to ask precisely the right question in the right way to bring light to some problem or other that has puzzled "older and wiser" heads. - Third (note the position) - The "forum" interface was originally developed for the specific purpose of developing "knowledgebases" from which people (who did not necessarily understand anything about the subject matter) could develop "decision trees" which would, in turn, allow people (who didn't necessarily know anything about whatever technology was providing the underlying knowledge/question base, and who also often did not have English as a primary language) to provide what amounted to "tab A - slot B" answers to limited sets of questions before passing a caller off to someone higher up the food chain who had access to a deeper level of the "knowledge base", and/or had technical competency, and/or could write proper SQL/related queries so that some kind of "answer" (often unrelated to the original question) could be provided and the contract for timely response be fulfilled. Note that none of this has anything to do with discussing much of anything. It's largely a one-way communication which allows the end-user only highly limited and/or complicated access to the broader range of knowledge and/or documentation stored in the "knowledge base". Put more colloquially, it's rather like earning a Ph.D. - One learns more and more about less and less until one knows everything about nothing. That said, there are some important discussions going on within a number of the sub-groups on the forums. The problems with accessing each and every one of them have already been hashed through here, so I won't reiterate them. And, it's important to note that at least one other piano-related technical forum (the one on Piano World) seems to work reasonably well. My point here is that, if the purpose of the ptg (and its related media-facing focii) is to reach out to the broadest possible audience in order to promote the profession (overall), then I respectfully suggest that use of a forum is a counterproductive misapplication of technology. The simple, old-fashioned EM list allows for "discussions" to take place; and, yes, sometimes things get really off-topic...and...maybe...having forums available for specific topics does make sense. At the same time, it's just as easy to change the subject line or to institute a new thread. - Fourth - From a purely external (but reasonably technically informed) standpoint, this transition has all the earmarks of an IT migration that went off the rails early in its history and has not yet been corrected. I suspect that whoever the SEs for Higher Logic were, they did not sufficiently investigate the overall business needs, desires, requirements & etc of their client. From the guild side, whoever was in charge did not sufficiently investigate whatever solution providers might be in the market to see what different offerings were available. In short, far too much miscommunication, far too early in the process, resulting in an inadequately "scoped" project...which either means constant "change orders" (hoping for improvement), or, as Ryan appropriately (if inflammatorily) suggested, simply scrapping the whole thing...using it as a learning step...and moving forward. I suspect that the server(s?) used are virtualized and/or shared with other HL clients. That would account, in part, for the variable response time in posting. The variable time in authenticating to the system suggests an ODBC connection problem between the my.ptg.org site and the membership DB which, I suspect, is housed on the main ptg site. These are merely technical issues which should be easily resolvable. More troubling is the clunky, dated, ill-documented interface...which itself requires accessing yet another forum to get any information...feh...bad design, folks. I couldn't care less about the technical stuff, because it will ultimately resolve itself. (Nearly) Finally - I want to be clear that the only dog I have in this fight has to do with keeping the list open to all comers. The problem is the loss of subscribers, some of whom have made truly substantive contributions to the improvement and betterment of the profession over long periods of time; and the loss of a place in which people of different skill levels can have someplace in which to actively or passively learn more than they otherwise could. For those who would limit subscription to ptg members only, just be aware that, long term, such a move would be a losing hand for the organization. Duaine, About my valedictory "Cheers!". I'll stick with things like that. While I do not necessarily agree with everything that's posted on the list, I'm also immediately aware that we are all individuals, each of whom, regardless of anything else, have our own humanity; and, it is that commonality which I continue to choose, however inadequately, to celebrate. I may not agree with decisions the current board has made, but I do accept that they are working to do their best; and am willing to give them some space. At the end of the day, there may be a new board soon; and that board may make different decisions...with which I may also disagree...though, I'll try to be more careful when poking at things...EM really is a pretty poor medium of communication. Besides, not only is it Sunday, it's the first day of a new year. Perhaps we'll all find 2012 to be more charitable to us than 2011 was. Kind regards to all, Horace At 05:37 AM 1/1/2012, you wrote: >With all due respect Horace, I'm surprised you took Ryan's post to >be inflammatory. He was just stating how most all of us, that have >been using the old list feel. > >The PTG may have made a few improvements to the web site, but the >new list is not a viable means of communication for us. We have >neither the time nor inclination to go through all we need to do, >just to post a problem, photo or response. We need to do whatever it >takes to get through to those who are responsible for implementing >the new list, to listen to people who put them where they are. They >should be there to help us, not to impede what we need to do to get >a job done or get good information out to all, as Rob Mitchell has >just done in his summery. > >I'm sorry, but two things we should have learned by our age is: 1- >subscribe to the KISS theory and 2- If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > >Al - >High Point, NC > > > >On Dec 31, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Horace Greeley wrote: > >> >>Hi, Ryan, >> >>Let's not be unnecessarily inflammatory.... >> >>Cheers! >> >>Horace >> >> >>---------- >>From: Ryan Sowers <<mailto:tunerryan at gmail.com>tunerryan at gmail.com> >>Sender: <mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org>pianotech-bounces at ptg.org >>Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:16:27 -0800 >>To: <<mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>pianotech at ptg.org> >>ReplyTo: <mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>pianotech at ptg.org >>Subject: Re: [pianotech] Unsubscribe >> >>I think the problem is this Board of Directors is too emotionally >>invested in the new and improved product because they have spent so >>much time, energy, and (our)$$ on it. The only hope would be to >>elect a new board who isn't so invested in it. I keep thinking that >>we've had a poorly designed/manufactured piano delivered to us and >>the leadership keeps trying to convince us that it just needs a >>little more regulating and "playing in". I would like to see the >>whole thing scrapped and start over with something that works and >>that the membership wants. >> >>Ryan >> >>On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Ron Nossaman >><<mailto:rnossaman at cox.net>rnossaman at cox.net> wrote: >>On 12/31/2011 1:02 PM, David Boyce wrote: >>Yes indeed. We'll all be 'unsubscribed' when this list is finally >>terminated, after all.... >> >>David. >><http://www.davidboyce.co.uk/>www.davidboyce.co.uk >> >>Aw, shucks, hang around until the list is history. I plan to. >> >>Joy! >> >>Elwood >> >> >> >>And as I keep attempting to point out, if we could get anyone >>responsible to take interest in *requiring* HL to make their >>"legacy" option actually work, we would have equivalent function in >>the new system and would have no real need of either the old >>pianotech list, or HL's much admired social networking site. >>Ron N >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Ryan Sowers, RPT >>Puget Sound Chapter >>Olympia, WA >><http://www.pianova.net/>www.pianova.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC