1) I agree with Paul about both the accomplishment of finishing an XCMA
reading of a book, and the "different" voices that were present. Personally,
I was glad to hear some Russian voices enter the discussion as well as the
many others who do not engage in the "free flow" aspect of discussions.
2) I agree with Judy in that the "free flow" is an important aspect of XCMA.
The bunnies must live on (not that anyone is suggesting we kill em).
3) I think part of the idea behind what Mike and me were discussing was the
relationship (or lack there of) between MCA and XCMA and how those could be
linked more strongly. How can we for example have the Journal which can now
be accessed online (for $) be more tightly connected with XCMA. It seems
important that XCMA have a stronger role here.
I guess that brings us to the accessibility question - the technological
side has been addressed, but that still leaves the financial and other
"choices" we make. How big a role this plays in having collective
discussions of MCA articles / themes etc accessible to the XCMA readership
I am not sure.
Lastly, I think its good that we are collectively thinking about this - even
the "free flow" that is often valued does not "just happen" but has to be
nurtured to be successful. It seems to me "free flow", papers, books, etc
discussions often bring different voices so its important to nuture diverse
ways for members to interact.
Well, back to Frogger 2.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 27 2004 - 11:29:00 PST