[pianotech] pianotech

[Mark Dierauf]

Didn't you read his full message, Ron? He can't hear you! <g>

- Mark

On 2/26/2013 7:19 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote:
> 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
>