[pianotech] pianotech

[Susan Kline]

Kent, thank you for giving us your take on this, and some information 
which had not reached us.

You say: <<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.>>

What "wild and woolly nature" is this, again?

Your comments imply that some people (who should know better) feel that 
control is
their particular task in life. I don't remember us signing on for their 
censorship.

A lack of foresight and simple manners greatly hampered the "myptg" 
transition, and
now the same traits are in evidence again. How this appears from outside 
the leadership
is that decisions are made behind closed doors, without consulting the 
membership,
and then a long time later the actions are taken without prior notice or 
explanation of
the reasoning behind them, and complaints are totally ignored as long as 
possible.
The unsavory dish is slapped down <plop> in an "eat this and shut up" way.

When people get so upset they are ready to toss their RPT status in 
disgust,
it might serve as a wake-up call about PTG culture and governance. If 
one weighs
what might be called a "likability factor", mailman-pianotech in one pan 
and
the whole rest of the PTG in the other, for some people pianotech is 
winning.
And this even when obvious positives like the Journal and conventions 
are in
the opposite pan.

How much, then, does the general readership of pianotech despise the new 
website
and the unresponsive habits of the leadership? A GREAT DEAL.

And will the decision-makers even read this? That people should be 
wondering whether Jim
Coleman, Jr. needs to have comments on pianotech personally emailed to him
shows right there where the problems lie.

Susan


Kent Swafford wrote:
> I would like to offer a few comments about the pianotech situation. This will be a political post deliberately put on pianotech.   8^)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I am one of those who is indescribably disappointed with the board over this issue.
>
> 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.
>
> The board appears to feel that the decision has been explained adequately. I do not share that opinion. However, the board is under no obligation to explain.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The free-wheeling speech here has never bothered me in any way that I couldn't handle for myself. I have very strong filters so that 4 pianotech subscribers, one currently inactive, never reach my computer.
>
> 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.
>
>  But like it or not, it is time to move on.
>
> Please remember that for all the people who have enjoyed pianotech, there have been those who have very simply never seen its value.
>
> 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.
>
> Don't give my.ptg over to the b_______s. Make your voices heard. You know PTG needs you. (Well, all but about 4 of us, IMO.)   <huge grin>
>
> And at council time, send a delegate ready to ask hard questions about who deserves to be re-elected!
>
> See you.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Kent Swafford
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20130226/42d376b6/attachment.htm>