Hi Paul,
Good point -- the social obligation to respond to a direct question could go into a new-comers guide.
Took a few moments to follow up on your question of consensus/representation:
From Eva I get the following baseline data for the year 1999:
on average 53 individuals send an average of 242 messages each month.
17 individuals contributed to 60 of the messages I sorted that had something to do with the participation/rules discussion. It was just a quick sort and count -- so I won't argue over its validity -- it's a ballpark figure.
To compare the last 10 days of "rules" messages to 1999 baseline:
the number of people posting "rules" messages amounted to 1/3 of the expected number of contributors for a month, and 1/4 of the expected number of messages for a month. It's moot what model you choose to extend the 10 day data to one month.
bb
>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