[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Changing Practices at XMCA

Helena, Bruce R et al--

So we put self organization to the test with a dollop of reflexivity,
prodded by several symptoms of discussion that either gets too narrowly
personal, or appears to lack interest in topics of central interest to
those who signed on for whatever reasons whenever.

I have a lot of sympathy for this comment, Bruce:

"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."

The issue from my perspective is what are current subscribers, who are
overwhelmingly not multi-decade participants, willing to contribute to
un-diminishing what you get out of xmca? Right now there are threads that
interest me. Lets see what sort of sturdier twine may be spun from it.


On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Bruce Robinson <brucerob1953@googlemail.com
> wrote:
> 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.

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.