<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Could it be that Member Max, would be used to exclude non PTG members?<div>I was a member of PTG for quite a few years, and now that I am 73, I no longer feel that I want to pay the dues.</div><div>Actually, I let my membership lapse when I turned 70, or was it 71.</div><div>I see that in myptg, there are some areas that I am not allowed to subscribe too. So much for all those years of dues I did pay.</div><div>Anyway, I hope it all works out.</div><div>The list is still the best resource there is.</div><div>John Ross</div><div>Windsor, Nova Scotia<br><div><div>On 2011-07-02, at 6:35 PM, Encore Pianos wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I have been asking myself the same question about the Member Max integration<br>thing. I just don't see how important it is to the list users except in the<br>most limited way (and I cannot figure out what that would even be). <br><br>I'll answer Ron's question. The Pianotech Forum does not require Member<br>Max. That much is obvious, because no such integration existed for the last<br>15 years and we functioned pretty well without it. Perhaps the home office<br>sees a utility in that integration, but no one has explained that to us yet,<br>and the value would only be for their use and not ours. I think it is fair<br>to say that the Pianotech Forum exists primarily for the users - otherwise<br>why have it at all? If the Pianotech Forum exists primarlly for the users,<br>then if we are establishing a hierarchy of values, what would be the more<br>important value - meeting the users needs and encouraging usage by having<br>the best possible e-mail server (one that is easy to use and simple, a<br>measure by which the HL fails compared to even the old list) or meeting some<br>narrow administrative desire for the home office. If the users are truly<br>valued, it is obvious which answer suits us. <br><br>Will<br><br><br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> [,mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On<br>Behalf Of Ron Nossaman<br>Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:01 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L<br><br>On 7/2/2011 2:44 PM, Dale Probst wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I know that the Member Max/Higher Logic interface was how we came to HL.<br></blockquote><br>I don't recall that anyone else has asked, so I will. The integration with<br>Member Max has been invoked as the overwhelming justification for buying the<br>HL package nearly every time someone complains about the new pianotech<br>forum. But what does that mean to us? What does Member Max have to do with<br>the pianotech list? Looking it up, I see it's an organizational management<br>system, but I don't find mention of mailing list forums. Is Member Max<br>necessary to Pianotech? If so, how. If not, why is it always thrown up<br>between the question and a possible answer as a justification for the<br>current lame forum that is being shoved down our throats when it's<br>irrelevant? So what's the connection. How does the pianotech forum require<br>Member Max?<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">I'm pretty sure from my conversations with Board members that they <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">want the best they can get.<br></blockquote><br>For whom? That's the core of this discussion.<br><br><br>I have been told that if HL doesn't work, we will<br><blockquote type="cite">go another direction.<br></blockquote><br>Again, doesn't work for whom? The pianotech forum already doesn't work for a<br>considerable number of us, but I don't see any signs of movement addressing<br>basic function. And is "another direction" another $75K or more spent<br>without care as to whether the list communities will find the replacement<br>adequate? We've all been told a lot of stuff, but it's all very fuzzy and<br>unaccountable.<br><br>Here's a suggestion. We have a number of folks in the organization, and more<br>on the lists, that have professional programming experience. I wouldn't be<br>surprised if some of them wouldn't volunteer (the magic word<br>VOLUNTEER!) to give HL's code a look and get some idea what it would really<br>and truthfully take to make it work for the mail lists. I wouldn't be<br>surprised if the interface couldn't be reorganized into something usable<br>too, given someone with experience. From our viewpoint, we can't verify that<br>HL even truly exists, or that this thing isn't being run by some 16 year and<br>an iguana in someone's basement.<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">I would suggest you read Fred Sturm's post on PTG-L when you have <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">time. Progress in PTG can try your patience due to the volunteer basis <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the organization. I always heard it compared to turning an aircraft <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">carrier.<br></blockquote><br>Is HL volunteer? Don't they have a list of changes (which we haven't seen<br>and can't judge potential usefulness), which they are being paid to<br>implement? That's what we were told. Is that right?<br><br>This thing showed up in February as one giant impenetrable ink cloud. <br> From then to now, we just a couple of days ago got figures on what it cost,<br>and still can't seem to get information other than "we're working on it".<br>Since our questions mostly concern the lists and the answers are either<br>hopelessly vague or office administration specific, will we ever know what<br>"it" is?<br><br>How about we all talk about the same thing, at least?<br>Ron N<br><br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>