[pianotech] mailman list

[Ryan Sowers]

What's the deal? I like fruitcake! (I prefer my brandy on the side).

Ryan

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:16 PM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote:

> I wouldn’t say sanguine on the outcome, I’m plenty cynical, or let’s say
> cautiously pessimistic.  But I don’t think there’s a con game going on.
> Jim says they’re working on improvements and I take him at his word.  Let’s
> see what gets produced.   No matter what that is, of course, not everyone
> will be happy.  Remember, there are some who like the new format and are
> not participating in this discussion.  Anyway, there’s still plenty of time
> and opportunity to occupy the PTG.  Look at the bright side: we’re probably
> more than 1%.   I do agree with Del though, why waste good brandy (or bad
> for that matter) on fruitcake.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> David Love****
>
> www.davidlovepianos.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On
> Behalf Of *David Skolnik
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:49 PM
>
> *To:* pianotech at ptg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] mailman list****
>
> ** **
>
>
> Jim -
> It is good to know that you continue to monitor this list and are willing
> to respond.  There are a few points which leave me uneasy.
>
> At 02:43 PM 1/3/2012, you wrote:
>
> ****
>
> Folks, there is nothing *political* about whether this List survives or
> not. It is *Inevitable*  that it will end as we know it.  Just like the
> wagon in the pioneer days, party lines, the dial telephone, analog
> television and cell phones the size of a brick, the world/technology
> continues to move on.****
>
>
> It would make sense, from a political (with a small 'p') point of view at
> least, to have a clear explanation (re-explanation) as to the reason for
> this *Inevitability. *I have read numerous opinions that suggest that
> this is not entirely the case, so, rather than have it be a question of
> whether I accept what you say, simply because you are the president, or
> because you bolded and italicized words, realize that most of the
> subscribers would probably be willing to adapt if a) the reasons were
> unassailable,  b) the new venue worked, and c) the transition was
> adequately supported.
>
>
> ****
>
> It is clearly understood by this Board as well as last year's that the new
> website was launched too soon and without enough beta testing. *We have
> good people working on the problems and you will know well in advance when
> we are ready to reintroduce the improved site.*****
>
>
> I have no doubt the people working on this are good.  We're all good
> (except maybe for Duaine).   Unfortunately, the message of that sentence,
> whether intended or not, is: "Step back, we're on it, we'll work it out,
> stay out, etc.".  You (the Board) still seem disinclined to open up the
> process.  You (the Board) seem to be hoping that the noisy few will just
> fade away if only you don't engage them. I'm pretty naive, especially for
> one sporting white hair and not so good eyes.  That strategy might be
> effective, if that's what you were looking to do, but I get the feeling
> that most of these noisy folks would like to feel more a part of the
> process.
>
> Meanwhile, I share David Love's view that, there is, at least at this
> point, no inherent relationship between replacing the Board and resolving
> our issues about the lists.  What's more, I continue to believe that any
> such discussion belongs on PTG-L, not here.  AND YET, as previously stated,
> the line  between this open list and PTG becomes obscured when you write:
>
>
> ****
>
> In the meantime let's all work together for a better PTG.****
>
>
> It becomes hard to justify the sequestration of only certain utterances
> pertaining to PTG, and not others.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't share David's sanguinity with the current process,
> as evidenced by what I said above.  In fact, he seems to propose the exact
> opposite.
>
> ****
>
> if Jim says they are working on it then let them work on it.
> if those improvements can be delivered then great.  If not, then people
> will either suck it up or drop off.
> But there’s only one way to find out, let those who are working on it
> continue to work on it until it’s done ****
>
>
> Who is working on it and why such opacity?
> Suck it up or drop off?  I feel so much better knowing I have a choice.
> There's only one way to find out?  No, I think there's more than one way.
>
> Finally, a random thought (as opposed to what: you ask) :  It might be
> politically (again, with a small 'p') effective to follow through with an
> idea I posed to Kathy or Barbara:  Generate a written and edited transcript
> of the Pianotech Live meeting that took place July 15, 2011 ****
>
>
> http://my.ptg.org/resources/viewdocument/?DocumentKey=3bc48209-b939-4f51-b6fa-92853063115a
> ****
>
> Whether everyone would agree with what was said is unclear, but it's
> probably a worthwhile starting point.
>
> Cheers for New Year's -
> David Skolnik RPT
>
> And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going across the hall to get some of
> that brandy n' pudding that they're serving @ RonN's & ddf's & David L's
> postings.  I'll prepare something nice next time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Ryan Sowers, RPT
Puget Sound Chapter
Olympia, WA
www.pianova.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120103/95f1fabd/attachment-0001.htm>