[Xmca-l] Re: Changing Practices at XMCA

[Bruce Robinson]

I too support both of Helena's suggestions. As a long term lurker, I 
find the overheads in terms of time and effort of following and mailbox 
space of  many of the threads too great, particularly where they become 
personal exchanges. (This may also be because my interests are perhaps 
somewhat different from the mainstream ones of xmca, I acknowledge). A 
length limit might also encourage more people to contribute - I also 
feel, perhaps wrongly, that the threshold effort to raise and discuss 
things is quite high here as discussions tend to be long and require a 
lot of input. Either that or alternatively posts get little or no response.

I don't see how Helena's proposals can be enforced other than either 
formal moderation for which nobody has the time or else self-restraint 
combined with a degree of social pressure from others on the list. These 
are not new issues. They have affected elists since the pre-historic 
days of the Internet all of 20 years ago.

I appreciate Mike raising the whole issue for an open discussion as I 
have recently detected an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, discontent, 
unrest - call it what you like - about the way things have been going 
with xmca. I have myself considered leaving but stayed because I value 
the project and get something from xmca, though I feel that has 
diminished over time.

I appreciate this is subjective but I doubt I am the only one of the 
mysterious 800 who feels this way.

Bruce Robinson


On 12/12/2014 22:05, David Preiss wrote:
> I strongly support these two. Current use makes even lurking a hard task. If one wants personal exchanges better go off list. Just a thought.
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
>> El 12-12-2014, a las 18:49, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> I have two suggestions for changing practices, along with subject lines that accurately track a thread.
>>
>> 1. Messages no more than two screens long. One is preferred.
>>
>> 2. No more individually addressed messages. As in, "Tom, you said X" or "Melissa, you have misunderstood my point."   Refer to an individual by quoting or citing, but speak to the list.
>>
>> Both of these may not qualify as "modest." I can defend each one, but will first wait for the *&^&*storm, if one is coming.
>>
>> Thanks --
>>
>> Helena
>> :)
>>
>> Helena Worthen
>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:43 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear xmca0philes
>>> My most recent note, regarding discussion of sociocritical theory via
>>> Kris's RRQ paper, ​indicates part of my effort to implement modest changes
>>> in the organization of xmca discourse aimed at improving its usefulness and
>>> attractiveness to people (the two being mixed).
>>>
>>> At the most minimum level, ​we can reduce some sources of misunderstanding
>>> and discoordination by declaring a distinct header for any topic anyone
>>> wants to discuss concerning culture and development in their broadest
>>> contexts. No guarantee ever that anyone will respond, let alone set off a
>>> stream of responses. But at least we can keep sequence in the threads
>>> consistent, and they will be easy to retrieve as a set from the archiving
>>> web page should one want to.
>>>
>>> There are no policepersons in this process. (But so far as I can tell, no
>>> harm in nagging).
>>>
>>> Other modifications in the structure of the discourse are possible. It
>>> would be nice to know, for example, how many people actually read xmca from
>>> time to time in some form, and how many of our 800+ subscribers have xmca
>>> in their span filters. About 200 people people have posted in the past
>>> year. Bruce and I are working on a non-obtrusive way of checking to see how
>>> many silent folks are lurking out of interest and how many are zombies.
>>>
>>> Early on Annalisa suggested a sort of "Beginner's Manual" which seemed like
>>> a good idea, but it requires some coordinated person power. A group to
>>> create such a facility is in the process of formation, and I figure there
>>> should be more about that appearing.
>>>
>>> A year or more ago Andy and Huw put together a wiki that I think of
>>> (perhaps inappropriately) as a kind of "key word wiki" for CHAT.
>>> It exists, although it is in quarantine at present to insure that it will
>>> never carry any viruses into the UCSD campus. This seems like
>>> a natural part of the xmca pool of resources, and may be useful to the
>>> newbiies' materials.
>>>
>>> We have looked into forums and other media for xmca, but so far as I can
>>> tell, there is no general purpose utility that would not require the
>>> involvement of significantly more coordinated person power, and probably
>>> customizing, et that LCHC can manage. Perhaps I am wrong about this and the
>>> new, great, effortless substitute is at your nearest supermarket. However,
>>> for the moment, we will continue working within the fungible, but perhaps
>>> not entirely elastic, structure of xmca.
>>>
>>> Now, back to the thread I want to address,
>>> Imagination
>>> mike
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>