Hi Bill,
I don't have much of an opinion about the discussion. It seemed
to me that about 4-6 people contributed about 90% of that discussion. I
really used my delete button a lot when I got back from my trip so I didn't
read much of it.
I did see that there were a number of different proposals and
given that the number of people participating in the discussion represented
at best 5 percent of the people subscribed to xmca, I didn't really
take any single proposal as very representative. I admit to not having read
completely: was there some consensus? How many consensed?
I did notice that someone opined that things weren't all that bad and I
guess I agree with that assessment. Personally I think we'll all be fine
just moving along with what brought us to subscribe to xmca to begin with.
I don't think xmca is broken and so the old adage about when to fix things
seems appropriate to me.
I also agree with those who feel that it's rather futile to try to establish
rules beyond
those that, as mike and others pointed out, most of the people follow most
of the time. Of course there'll always be conflicting interpretations about
these not so terribly implicit rules.
As to my previous involvement in this thread, it has really been
tangential. Other than my comments on Rosa's use of something I wrote in
response to kathie who was criticizing me for the "tone" with which I asked
for activity triangle procedures, I
really haven't contributed. Also, this is not something I intend to
post about again. I am in Bruce's camp on this issue. But you asked me
a direct question, and I have given you a direct answer--winking here to
Rosa in her garden--pues para mi el asunto ni es chicha, ni limonada.
If others find the discussion useful that's fine too.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:14 PST