<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good response David. I wanted to respond to this post, but then I thought, Why?. It's like the question, "If a tree fall in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise". In this case NO! We are wasting our time, because "It is <b><i>Inevitable".</i></b><div><br></div><div><div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>Al -</div><div>High Point, NC</div><div><br></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div> <br><div><div>On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:48 PM, David Skolnik wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div> <br> Jim -<br> It is good to know that you continue to monitor this list and are willing to respond.  There are a few points which leave me uneasy.<br><br> At 02:43 PM 1/3/2012, you wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="x-msg://54/">Folks, there is nothing <b><i>political</i></b> about whether this List survives or not. It is <b><i>Inevitable</i></b>  that it will end as we know it.  Just like the wagon in the pioneer days, party lines, the dial telephone, analog television and cell phones the size of a brick, the world/technology continues to move on.</blockquote><br> It would make sense, from a political (with a small 'p') point of view at least, to have a clear explanation (re-explanation) as to the reason for this <b><i>Inevitability. </i></b> I have read numerous opinions that suggest that this is not entirely the case, so, rather than have it be a question of whether I accept what you say, simply because you are the president, or because you bolded and italicized words, realize that most of the subscribers would probably be willing to adapt if a) the reasons were unassailable,  b) the new venue worked, and c) the transition was adequately supported.<br><br> <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="x-msg://54/">It is clearly understood by this Board as well as last year's that the new website was launched too soon and without enough beta testing. <b><i><u> We have good people working on the problems and you will know well in advance when we are ready to reintroduce the improved site.</u></i></b></blockquote><br> I have no doubt the people working on this are good.  We're all good (except maybe for Duaine).   Unfortunately, the message of that sentence, whether intended or not, is: "Step back, we're on it, we'll work it out, stay out, etc.".  You (the Board) still seem disinclined to open up the process.  You (the Board) seem to be hoping that the noisy few will just fade away if only you don't engage them. I'm pretty naive, especially for one sporting white hair and not so good eyes.  That strategy might be effective, if that's what you were looking to do, but I get the feeling that most of these noisy folks would like to feel more a part of the process.   <br><br> Meanwhile, I share David Love's view that, there is, at least at this point, no inherent relationship between replacing the Board and resolving our issues about the lists.  What's more, I continue to believe that any such discussion belongs on PTG-L, not here.  AND YET, as previously stated, the line  between this open list and PTG becomes obscured when you write: <br><br> <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="x-msg://54/">In the meantime let's all work together for a better PTG.</blockquote><br> It becomes hard to justify the sequestration of only certain utterances pertaining to PTG, and not others.<br><br> Unfortunately, I don't share David's sanguinity with the current process, as evidenced by what I said above.  In fact, he seems to propose the exact opposite.  <br> <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="x-msg://54/">if Jim says they are working on it then let them work on it.<br> if those improvements can be delivered then great.  If not, then people will either suck it up or drop off.<br> But thereＴ only one way to find out, let those who are working on it continue to work on it until itＴ done </blockquote><br> Who is working on it and why such opacity?  <br> Suck it up or drop off?  I feel so much better knowing I have a choice.<br> There's only one way to find out?  No, I think there's more than one way.<br><br> Finally, a random thought (as opposed to what: you ask) :  It might be politically (again, with a small 'p') effective to follow through with an idea I posed to Kathy or Barbara:  Generate a written and edited transcript of the Pianotech Live meeting that took place July 15, 2011 <br><br> <dl> <dd> <a href="http://my.ptg.org/resources/viewdocument/?DocumentKey=3bc48209-b939-4f51-b6fa-92853063115a"> http://my.ptg.org/resources/viewdocument/?DocumentKey=3bc48209-b939-4f51-b6fa-92853063115a</a> <br><br> </dd></dl>Whether everyone would agree with what was said is unclear, but it's probably a worthwhile starting point.  <br><br> Cheers for New Year's -<br> David Skolnik RPT<br><br> And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going across the hall to get some of that brandy n' pudding that they're serving @ RonN's & ddf's & David L's postings.  I'll prepare something nice next time.<br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <br> </div> <br> </blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>