SUO: Re: SUOP Topics :> ECORD :> Posting Policy
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> ECORD :> Posting Policy. Note 2
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Tom,
Let me make a few more remarks about my perspective.
This is a Working Group. There's more to that than
just your average discussion group. It means that
there is work to be done. It means that there are
responsibilities engaged by the membership that go
beyond the Peirce Cafe, the Lonely Hearts Club, the
E-Vanescent Vanity Press, which I say in full spite
of what some people may think I think it's all about.
The responsibility of penultimate concern to me is the
the responsibility that all of us here have to Society.
The only truly effective way, indeed, the most truly efficient
way that we have of carrying on our espoused mission and thus
shouldering our engaged reponsibilities is through the medium
of "online interactive collaboration" (OIC). Oh I See? Well,
suprisingly enough, some do not, at least, not yet. But when
someone proposes ways and means for carrying out our work, and
when I run through the features that I'd expect to see in any
viable ways and means, the very first question I ask, of course,
is whether this policy catalyzes or whether it inhibits inquiry,
and the very next question, almost a corollary in the present
context of discussion, is whether it mediates OIC.
So, with these questions in mind, let me run through your items.
TJ: 1. I find them overwhelming. But that's because I feel
obligated to skim all of them, after which I find that
I need to read a few of them. So as painful as it is, I'd
prefer to have them available. However, if you wanted to
redirect them to another list, that would be ok with me,
just as long as I could get to them.
Would redirecting each other's work to other lists be a solution
to the problems I am addressing? No, it merely makes it easier
for members to ignore each other's contrubutions, and provides
convenient excuses for them to shirk their responsibilities
to both inquiry and communication, without which it will
not be possible to fullfill the mission of the SUO WG.
The ONT list was created as a ghetto and it remains
a ghetto. I have already used it to store lots of
basic textbook material and classic papers on all
sorts of standard subjects that some folks here
think they can sit down and write axioms about
without knowing either. But relegating it to
the ghetto means that everybody who wants to
ignore the standard stuff knows that they
can ignore it without losing credibility,
face, or official status, no matter how
many links you post to it. The same
principle applies to everything at
John's and Robert's 'blabyrinths.
It does not come to inform our
discussions here in the least.
TJ: 2. I've learned a lot from Jon, and don't want his contributions
excluded. But again, restricting them to another list would
be fine with me.
It would be fine with me, if I were not serious about the SUO work.
TJ: 3. I've posted some pretty lengthy emails myself, and will
now take the approach of posting to the ONT list. If what
triggers my posting is a comment in the SUO list, I'll post
a brief email to the SUO list, saying that a longer reply can
be found on the ONT list. Since my contributions focus on the
philosophical aspects of our work, the ONT list is a perfectly
good place for me to move to.
TJ: 4. Jon's contributions aren't so easily segregated into
a narrow subject matter. But perhaps he could take
a similar approach to mine. Post a synopsis to the
SUO list, referencing a longer analysis which would
be posted to another list.
This policy, and the intricately gerrymanded stylings of John Sowa,
pretty much guarantess that only trivial discussions will occur on
the SUO List, plus the odd auto-referential book, conference, and
paper announcements. And, oh yes, lots and lots of Adminstrivia.
TJ: 5. Also, there was some talk about creating sub-folders for
contributors to use to file their own material, either
lengthy emails to the SUO or other original material.
For my own work, I think that would be helpful, to
have it all gathered together in one place. (Since
I'm something of a Johnny-One-Note, my emails tend
to re-inforce one another.) Any chance that can
be done?
Would this serve to facilitate online interactive collaboration
that stretches across the whole group, or would it tend more to
generate a whole lot of birds-of-a-feather type breakouts, with
little gravitation toward intercommunication and interoperation?
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o