[pianotech] mailman list

[Encore Pianos]

You reinforce the point I was trying to make in my post yesterday, and it is
one that our leadership should have learned well after the amount of
controversy and vitriol that manifested itself last spring and early summer
whilst our leadership remained silent.  A lot of that dissipated after Phil
and a couple of others started given us a heads up.  But now things have
been quiet on that front for some months, and it seems that little that was
promised to correct the defects has yet come to pass.  There is nothing
wrong with HL buying modules that  increase the flexibility of the product
in other areas, but if they show a lack of progress on our issues, whether
from inability or indifference, then that has to bring into question their
value to us as the agent that will carry our list into the future.  

The fact that many of us still have the perception that our leadership
little uses the list, or perhaps even understand the importance of replacing
the old list with a new one that, minimally, functions as well as the old
one in core functionality and basic day to day usage, means that we still
fear that we will be stuck with a barking dog (yapping poodle?) of a list -
unless we keep making noise.  

One of the clearest indicators of any list - new, old, or newer still - is
how many people will be willing to  use it.  That's a good baseline, and the
measure of success in the software market, all would's,  could's, and
should's not withstanding .

Will Truitt



-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Skolnik
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:02 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] mailman list

At 01:10 PM 1/4/2012, RonN wrote:
  Should we collectively want to change
>the background color, we likely would have a choice of a half dozen or 
>so options, but real function is apparently inaccessible. If this is 
>NOT the case, perhaps we could hear the truth from someone for a change 
>instead of the same tired stall with this into the future with 
>diminished function nonsense, and the implication that you're either 
>with us (carte blanche), or against us (ignore).


At this point in time, there is a significant danger that this list could
become singularly focused on the issue of "the list", and thus,  in striving
to survive, lose it's very reason to do so.  Ideally, we would have a
separate (though inclusive) space to engage in conversations of this nature,
but at this point, the simplest strategy, for those who can and chose to do
so, is to create a separate folder or mailbox.  But I digress.

I quoted RonN above because, to me, at the moment, the most insidious aspect
of this issue is the 'seeming' lack of engagement by the admittedly few
people in a position to respond.  I understand that JIm C, Jim M, Paul B and
Phil B aren't sitting home/office waiting to reply to each and every
complaint that is posted, but the, perhaps unintended, message that gets
conveyed is one of indifference, which I know, in my heart, is not the case.
I will grant that Phil would have to check himself in for an examination if
he actually relished the vitriol that has been periodically directed his way
(warranted though it might be), but, in the absence of any administrative
input, it takes very little time for things to fester.  It is, after all (as
we've been reminded) the 21st Century.  Reasonable or not, the expectations
for the speed of communication are not what they were, even 10 or 20 years
ago.  Or probably even 1 month ago.

In addition to 'good people' working on the problem, there ought to be some
evidence that there is at least one 'good person' whose responsibility
resides in keeping the sheep fat n' happy, or at least not spooked.

David Skolnik
Hastings on Hudson, NY