Mike and David and all,
By all means! I just think that there are times when more people jump in
and there are time when less people post. It may be for any reason. In
fact it would be interesting to find out what are the causes of less or
more participation. Don't you think?
As for myself -- I often find that I struggle for time even to cursory
glance at every posting. I would like to have more time to do the
writing, but then I find myself again needing more time to rethink what
I want to say, and sometimes to go and check my references etc. In other
words, my personal problem is time. Other people may have other issues.
However, as several people already said: this is an invaluable source of
ideas, knowledge, camaraderie... We should not let it just disappear.
So, people, just say "hi" -- it would be very reassuring!!! -- and, of
course, let's develop a discussion on Arievich.
What do you think?
Ana
David Daniel Preiss Contreras wrote:
>
> Mike,
> I agree. Publication list was a bad idea. I abort the suggestion.
> I would not worry about what you call 'spectators'. I guess people
> just manage participation in different ways. Some of us like to post
> more than others. What is relevant I think is to keep the thread going
> and invite people to join.
> Indeed, may be we can create a daily diggest option to people that are
> troubled by the influx of too many emails.I have been in some list
> servers that do this. That would help some people to keep track of the
> discussion and jump into the discussion at their own pace plus adding
> members that so don't feel intimidated by the intense rythm of emails.
> Keep XMCA rolling!
> What do you think?
> David
> David Le Blanc writes:
>
>> I confess to be an active lurker in the XMCA listserv. I would prefer to
>> actively participate but I am at a point in my graduate studies that I
>> presently haven't the time to manage this. However, I find the
>> discussions
>> to be an invaluable resource. The discussions challenge my
>> perspective and
>> give me pause to re-think my practice. Indeed, I find the discussions so
>> valuable that I save the majority of messages in separate folder of
>> my email
>> so that I can revisit them and reflect. Of course, this means that the
>> discussions usually will have moved on by the time I get an
>> opportunity to
>> respond.
>> Rather than closing the listserv, a possible solution may be to
>> change the
>> format from a listserv to a threaded discussion. Perhaps the threaded
>> Archive could be turned into an active discussion thread. This would
>> solve
>> the visibility problem of personal email addresses.
>> Of course the choice of discussion software is important. I currently
>> use an
>> Open Source product with my learners that allows them to hide or show
>> personal information such as their email address, personal Website, etc.
>> Some participants prefer that others see this information while
>> others do
>> not. It's always preferable when the particpants can choose these
>> options
>> for themselves; one size rarely fits all. Subscribers are automatically
>> emailed when someone posts to a thread that they have subscribed to.
>> Here's
>> a screenshot of a typical post as it would appear both in the
>> discussion and
>> their email: http://mysandbox.net/images/forumposting.jpg
>> User's systems that do not support graphics receive a text-only
>> version. The
>> The theoretical framework for the development of the software I use is
>> social-constructionist theory.
>> Whatever the software choice, I can only express what a loss of
>> community I
>> would feel if the listserv were to end up defunct.
>> David Le Blanc
>> http://MySandbox.net
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu] Sent: June 26, 2004
>> 12:46 PM
>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: RE: working to improve the infrastructure
>>
>> Hi Eugene-- I will ask the programmer who is working on the site if
>> we can
>> screen names. Since the archive is publically available and email
>> addresses
>> turn up there, I cannot see what advantage there is to making the entire
>> list anonymous.
>> I guess if we cannot be public to each other, it may well be time to
>> close
>> down xmca, so lets hope there is a techical fix. I am already
>> troubled by
>> the extent to which xmca is a spectator activity -- for example. some 35
>> people asked for a discussion of the Arievitch article, but only a
>> couple of
>> messages about the article have been posted. Voting is anonymous,
>> posting is not.
>> I worry about the suggestion of posting publications on the template
>> we are planning to institute for a related reason. It appears that some
>> people are intimidated by the fact that there are faculty posting, or if
>> they are already faculty members, that there are more senior faculty
>> members
>> posting, or........ whatever makes people think that rank matters in
>> this
>> forum thereby ensuring that rank matters.
>> I share your concerns about spam and even more the extent to which my
>> emails
>> are hijacked and turned into spam and virus carriers. But, as I said
>> in the
>> opening, if that concern is general, time to get off email and close
>> shop.
>> What do you think?
>> mike
>>
>>
>
>
>
> David D. Preiss
> home page: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~ddp6/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:57 PST
