[pianotech] pianotech

[Ron Nossaman]

On 2/26/2013 3:56 PM, Kent Swafford wrote:

> To those suggesting that a protest is in order to get the decision to
> close mailman reversed, I would suggest at this point that this is a
> lost cause.

It has been for many years. We've heard how antiquated it was, and how 
terribly expensive in VOLUNTEER time it was. Other than Andy's much 
needed and appreciated contributions and rewrites, everyone else who had 
anything to do with it said it was no real problem. Thanks again Andy, 
but it seems your time was wasted too.


> The action was taken by the full board (not unanimously, BTW),
> appears to be within the authority of the board, and the decision was
> taken with full awareness of the disappointment it would cause to
> some of the membership.

And for stated reasons that make no sense, when they condescend to 
pretend to explain.


> I am one of those who is indescribably disappointed with the board
> over this issue.

Disgusted is more accurate.


> Looking back, it is clear that there was never a chance that a
> decision would be made to continue pianotech indefinitely. The
> decision was actually made long ago and the inevitable closing was
> just put off temporarily.

Yes, which I repeatedly pointed out and immediately suggested that HL be 
fixed to perform the same basic functionality. This would have made the 
pianotech list unnecessary.


> The board appears to feel that the decision has been explained
> adequately. I do not share that opinion.

Neither does anyone else.


> However, the board is under
> no obligation to explain.

Why not? I think it's about time someone was accountable in some manner.


> However, I would suggest that an appropriate time to press for
> detailed explanations on this and any other issue is at re-election
> time for the officers.

Where do we get a list of who voted which way so we can make informed 
decisions? Since there's no way we'll ever get a meaningful explanation 
for this fiasco, this would be very enlightening.


> So, I would like to express the opinion that an alternative to
> abandoning my.ptg would be instead to sign up for my.ptg and continue
> to put the pressure on for it to work correctly.

Which is what SOME of us have done from the beginning. I've been told 
more than a few times in no uncertain terms that it won't EVER happen. 
HL isn't capable of making it work if they or anyone else wanted it to. 
PTG got their Member Max, the lists are just eyewash.


> Of course, there is a problem defining what constitutes "correct"
> operation. Both of the following are true:
>
> My.ptg is not as improved and does not work as well as it should;
> _and_ my.ptg does not work quite as badly as is usually represented
> on pianotech.

That depends entirely on what you want from it. The one fundamental 
thing (email functionality with attachments) that make the pianotech 
list work so nicely will NEVER be fixed in the HL software. Posters to 
the new system have been typically crisis hotline stuff from unknown 
people, or those who take great delight in chasing down and discussing 
the minutiae of the system and possible ways to coax it into doing 
something that ought to be basic.


> The current trash talk on pianotech regarding this decision is
> playing right into the hands of those who wanted all along to shut
> pianotech down over its wild and wooly nature.

I thought this was supposed to be an unmoderated free discussion list. 
Apparently not.


> Those 4 filters are adequate to let me enjoy pianotech immensely. It
> has been great, good people of pianotech! Thank you. Thank you. Thank
> you.

The board, however, wastes it and us.


> But like it or not, it is time to move on.

I agree. That's what some of us are doing with googletech.


> Please remember that for all the people who have enjoyed pianotech,
> there have been those who have very simply never seen its value.

This has been abundantly obvious all along, thank you.


> The voices that have made pianotech so valuable and vibrant are vital
> to tech discussions of piano service. It would be a terrible thing,
> IMO, for my.ptg to become just the milquetoast version of pianotech.

You apparently aren't reading it. It already is just that. And having 
dumped on the pianotech posters, it's just what the board wants and 
deserves.


> Don't give my.ptg over to the b_______s. Make your voices heard.

We have, repeatedly, and have gotten nonsense and abuse in return, as if 
we are idiot children that don't warrant an intelligent and truthful 
explanation or discussion. We are dismissed, so why hang around and take 
more?


>You
> know PTG needs you. (Well, all but about 4 of us, IMO.)   <huge
> grin>

Our cash, sure, but they must not need us at all or they wouldn't be 
driving us off so relentlessly and effectively. I hope they enjoy their 
lonesome little fiefdom sitting around the big table all alone in their 
dark and cold conference room congratulating themselves on winning over 
the forces of evil and efficiency. I'd even be happy to contribute a few 
bucks toward the purchase of epaulets and gold trimmed hats with big 
plumes for them.


> And at council time, send a delegate ready to ask hard questions
> about who deserves to be re-elected!

But then we've already read the "answers" to hard questions here, 
haven't we? All that's left is revenge, and that won't fix it either. We 
can, however go elsewhere and leave them to cannibalize one another as 
they carve more moai.
Ron N