What is interesting, about this idea of 'shepherding discussions,'
is what can happen when dissension effects a discussion.
Cool. And I'm impressed with the way y'all are dealing with it.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cole" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Shepherding discussions
> 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
> 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
> So much to learn, so few volunteers to help! :-)
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:20:53 +0700, firstname.lastname@example.org
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Mike and Bill,
> > I've just got back to email mode after drifting around for a couple of
> > computer-free (thanks in part to a bad Apple). Mike, I think your
> > having thread-shepherds is great, given, as you say, the success on the
> > course all those months back. The shepherd could ensure disussions stay
> > track and shepherd straying topics to new threads, hopefully without
> > 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
> > 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
> > race track while all the cars are looming in on you. For instance, I've
> > spent a half-hour or so looking at old discussions of "history" in CHAT,
> > found it quite difficult to find any substantial discourse on this hoary
> > 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