<html> <body> From: <a href="http://my.ptg.org/PTG/Communities/ViewDiscussions/MyBioView/?ContactKey=91b8b911-5d1e-4b95-a963-376828970602&MDATE=%3a48547567&UserKey=91b8b911-5d1e-4b95-a963-376828970602"> David Skolnik</a> To: <a href="http://my.ptg.org/PTG/Communities/ViewDiscussions/DigestViewer/?GroupId=121&MDATE=%3a48547567&UserKey=91b8b911-5d1e-4b95-a963-376828970602"> PTG-L</a> Posted: May 30, 2012 11:15 AM Subject: The Real Mailing List Issues - in my opinion This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: User Help Group and PTG-L . ------------------------------------------- I have, with reservations, cross posted this to PTG-L and User Help Group, as the discussion is floating between the two.  I will also 'cross' post it (i.e. copy'n'paste) to <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>.  My reticence derives from two concerns.  First, cross-posting is inherently confusing since, as Keith recently pointed out, responses are not cross-posted, ultimately producing parallel conversations.  Second, the mailing list discussion(s) inextricably mingle aspects of technology with PTG organizational issues, Fred's disclaimer not withstanding: I have little interest in analyzing in this thread how good or bad the decision-making process is within PTG. That is a topic for a separate thread Since the thrust of this post is, in fact 'organizational', I suspect that any responses would be most appropriately directed to PTG-L. I know some think it tiresome of me to continue to harp on this, but I do so to point out a certain structural absurdity.  How do we have a conversation (actually, multiple conversations, even within one subject) where half of the information is theoretically of a restricted nature (members only) and the other, not?  At the same time, Fred and Israel, perhaps Keith (and, of a few minutes ago Alan Gilreath), are content, in an assortment of explanations, with the de facto distortion of the true nature of member representation, not only in the conversation, but, more importantly, in the mechanations of the decision process. Fred is right.  It is a separate topic, however, at a month and a half away from Council, it is THE topic. Fred said, in the portion of any earlier response on PTG-L directed to my contention that the discussion was "presumptuous and unilateral" : it is your job to promote your ideal, not mine If by this he means making myself clear, he's right.   So let me try to be clear.  The appropriate venue for the  the debate is NOT self-evident, given that: a) actual membership engagement with modes of digital communication are balkanized (<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a> unrepresented) b) intertwined involvement of PTG organizational issues challenges ability of discussion to observe appropriate boundries. anywhere other than PTG-L. c) the impulses and proscriptive protocols that produced the Convention controversy earlier this year have not disipated. As I had previously suggested, right before it became obvious that the issue that did not even get distributed in the formal council literature was, in fact, going to be very definitely ON the agenda, the technological discussion should be able to take place: a) inclusively b) without the threat of imminent action This is some of the context that I was referring to when I suggested that Fred had quoted me somewhat selectively. <a href="mailto:Pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech@ptg.org</a>  (mailman) members have a singular responsibility at this point.  You don't have visibility unless you enter the 'forbidden' land of the HL forums, to access PTG-L, which, for members, is your 'birthright', so to speak.  Even once there, it's one thing to read, and certainly another to express ideas, as there are some who are quick to disparage.  The alternative would be to communicate by phone and / or by email with: a) your delegate (do you all know who that is, at this point? As of last week only 1/3 of chapters had certified.) b) your RVP (they are listed on page 2 of every PT Journal c) your PTG executive committee (President, Vice-President, Secretary/Treasurer, also listed on page 2 of Journal) I don't encourage engaging in organizational discussions on <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>, as someone is, sooner or later going to call the 'appropriateness' question, but you can certainly post that you have made the effort to communicate to some of the above.  To me, the question is only tangentially about the mailing lists.  It's mostly a question of wether you believe you have a voice in your organization.  Ultimately, your right to that voice is the product of excercising it. David Skolnik Hastings-on-Hudson NY </body> </html>