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

[Xmca-l] Quick | Experimental Swimlanes



Hi Helena, I guess if the wait time was adhered to, you would either sit on
your hands for two hours or edit the subject line (as I did).  But point
being that "slow" (or whatever you want to call it) would probably be more
empathic than consciously being aware of waiting.  Discussion of papers
seems to have its own register, so maybe something else for that?

One issue is whether it plays havoc with archives, but I guess they aren't
in pristine order presently either.

Bye for now,
Huw

On 3 November 2016 at 19:32, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like this. In addition, I like talking about HOW to have a conversation.
> I like Richard's description of a "passing theory." I seem to remember that
> there was a lot of work done on that a dozen or more years ago. Does anyone
> have more background on this?
>
> I note that I've responded quickly (10 minutes) in a "slow" lane.  How
> should I handle that?
>
> Helena
>
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > For emails marked slow, we might have an expectancy of a "wait time"
> (kudos
> > to Peter) of say 2 hours between emails, i.e. only reply after at least a
> > two hour wait, with maybe up to a maximum of 5 emails a day.  I am
> > obviously making this up -- so those with this preference can perhaps
> > indicate the tempo.
> >
> > And good?
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
>
>
>
Status: O