One good delay deserves another, Phil.
We have closed the polls on the article form MCA for discussion . I
will be the one on
Peirce. It is supposed to be made available by Erlbaum next week. Might you lead
this discussion in order to start us of on distribued stewardship? I
think that the volunteer shepards will appear only by example.
There are a lot of other articles and issues that people want to read.
Helene W has
gotten us to Yrjo's "Values, Rubbish and Work Place" paper as one
example,. Perhaps someone else (Helene) will lead that discussion?
Meantime, we enter finals week and I am completing a multiu-week
discussion with
colleagues and students in Santiago about culture and development. We
finish next
Thursday.
So much to learn, so few volunteers to help! :-)
mike
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:20:53 +0700, phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th
<phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th> wrote:
> Mike and Bill,
>
> I've just got back to email mode after drifting around for a couple of weeks,
> computer-free (thanks in part to a bad Apple). Mike, I think your suggestion of
> having thread-shepherds is great, given, as you say, the success on the CHAT
> course all those months back. The shepherd could ensure disussions stay on
> track and shepherd straying topics to new threads, hopefully without leaving
> any belly-up (I've never seen a sheep belly-up). The interventions like
> Michael's into Bill's thread are naturally important but might be better in
> another, parallel pen.
>
> For many, I think, discussions zoom along at such a rapid pace and take
> unexpected left or right turns that to join in is almost like jumping onto the
> race track while all the cars are looming in on you. For instance, I've just
> spent a half-hour or so looking at old discussions of "history" in CHAT, and
> found it quite difficult to find any substantial discourse on this hoary old
> issue.
>
> My two-bob's worth.
>
> Phil Chappell
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Mike wrote a couple of weeks ago:
>
> Thanks Bill-- Apropos of phil's analysis I did not read far enough
> down the note.
>
> What changes in xmca culture might mitigate the obvious problems
> without being likely to cause new problems. For example, I, too,
> thought the issue of cultural historical analysis
> important for my reasons, probably different that Phil's or Michael's,
> but personally pressing, but could think of no way to overlap my
> interests and other competing one's to do any follow up.
>
> Is there any change at all that creating something like a volunteer
> committee to shepard along different discussions acknoweldged as
> important might work? Anyone who really cares to see a particular
> thread pursued could work on that thread which might or might not
> propsper, but at least would not die a sudden death for no sponsor
> willing to put in, say, a week or so, seeing if it gathered attention,
> and different people could
> simultaneously participate and lurk as their proclivities led them to.
>
> Having the reminder of Eva's work appear and reappear, even as we miss
> her online presence, is one gift of the discourse.
> mike
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Inet-Webmail.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST