I'm taking you at your word because I don't really understand the technical side of how this works or what would be involved in maintaining an email option but I'm unconvinced that maintaining an email delivery option is not doable. I don't expect that anyone owes me an explanation but I haven't heard it yet. It's not a matter of learning how to operate it and, btw, it's not about boomers, they are the largest group that's using Facebook. It's about the critical point of the format interface at which participation is negatively impacted. I think this new format crosses that line that encourages or allows for the same level of participation considering that the success of the list relies on the willingness of those who possess the sought after information to share it at their own expense--time and convenience. For me, it adds just enough of a barrier that it will limit my participation, I can see that already. It's the same reason I don't use or participate in Piano Forum. That's not out of protest, that's out of convenience and ease of accessibility. How much? I don't know yet but it will impact it. Am I representative of the majority of users? I don't know, maybe not, but singling out me and a small group of dissenting voices (I'm not sure it's that small) and comparing those voices against the 4000 members of the PTG is not an appropriate way to look at it. Most of those 4000 members don't and won't participate in these dialogues whatever the format is. I think you should get over your reactions to the sarcastic negativity and relegating those who complain to churlish individuals waiting to say I told you so. How people express themselves can always be improved but that shouldn't diminish the sincerity of their message. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Israel Stein Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:22 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Digest, Vol 29, Issue 64 David, What you don't seem to understand is that the infrastructure on which this old format is based is no longer sustainable - it is going away, like it or not. It was based on a fortuitous happenstance that cannot be duplicated. i explained that. The new format is part of a comprehensive solution that will provide a possibility for you to continue making your contribution - but in a different environment. Quite a few people are already thriving in this new environment, many others are making honest efforts to learn how to operate it, and the "powers that be" have repeatedly stated that this is a work in progress, that concerns will be addressed in due time, and that the old environment is being kept operational until such time that the major issues are straightened out. Many people are reserving judgment, others are offering suggestions how to go forward, and - if you check some of the dialogue that is happening on other lists - you will see that efforts are being made to address concerns both on the "help" level and on the configuration level. Yet, you and a rather small group of people (if you look at it in the perspective of a 4000 member organization) have decided that this is crap, that you don't want to deal with it, and that you were somehow disrespected because a necessary change was made without consulting you personally. I see one or two who have become a bit more cooperative - but with a great deal of sarcastic negativity, as if they are just waiting for an opportunity to say "I told you so". Give it a rest for a few weeks or months - come back and see what and who is there after some more work has been done and whether it works for you. I am not comfortable in the new format yet - but I am working with it, slowly, and waiting to see some changes to things that are of concern to me which I discussed with the "brass" - instead of bitching about them in public. > > It?s part of what happensin dialogue. Some of the posts themselves are used for PTJ sections and are > > an integral part of that publication. But more than that the list > > represents an attitude that many technicians have of giving back. While the > > list provides an opportunity for people to learn from others it only does so > > out of the generosity and willingness of technicians (around the world in > > this case) to share their thoughts and ideas, techniques, tools and tips. > > It?s no small thing and the trade benefits enormously from that generosity. > > To imply that it is mostly the list members who owe something to the PTG for > > providing them a ?chatty? forum is to disrespect the efforts that they make > > to offer their collective wisdom. It is as if to say, thank you for your> > >generosity and now if you want to keep giving you will have to pay for your > > generosity. How much more effort should I have to make to offer what I > > know out of nothing more than my own commitment to the betterment of the > > trade and to help others who are trying to learn. Respectfully, I think you > > have it backwards. The PTG operates primarily as a source of education and > > support for its members and a running dialogue in real time, an open forum, > > where ideas are easily posted and discussed and where the format lends > > itself to tangential discussions that often lead in unpredictable but > > productive directions is a considerable part of that ongoing education. It > > doesn?t exist as easily or in the same way outside of this format. Whether > > you personally consider the list a valuable form of the ongoing education > > cycle I don?t know. But I do and so do a lot of others. David, with all due respect to your contributions, you need a reality check. While this "chatty forum" has been an important part of the PTG's infrastructure and may seem to be indispensable to you and some of the others here, this can change very quickly. My wife Susan - who has been on the Internet since it was the arpanet and has gone through literally dozens of such transitions on various forms of electronic group communication with regard to her professional and avocational interests - tells me that this sort of reaction is typical. First people resist the change, complain about the new format being unsuitable, threaten to leave, etc. etc. A year later everyone is scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss was about. And, she says, that this interface is pretty typical and some of the issues may just be bugs. I suspect that as the bugs are worked out and people learn how to use the new medium and discover its obvious advantages (of which I have already found some) this chatty group is going to sink into irrelevance - as it already has for many valuable contributors who have left these chatty lists (or were shoved off them, really) due to some of the inherent flaws of this format, some of which you list above. If you count up the names of those who have left or have been cowed into relative silence (and I have talked with some of them so I am not blowing smoke) you will see how small the group is to whom these lists are still so terribly important compared to those who have left them - or could take them or leave them. I have started lists (some of them are still running in their umpteenth iteration somewhere out there in cyberspace), managed and moderated them, participated in them. One thing I know for sure - members of lists typically develop an overblown sense of their own importance. Members of PTG-L sometimes think that they speak for the entire PTG membership - they don't, they are a self-selected group, and every year they have a wake-up call when they get to Council and find that often the conclusions they reached on line count for very little... Members of CAUT and Pianotech have made a valuable contribution - but theirs is a rather small portion of the entire PTG knowledge base, and represents a rather limited range of opinions on technical issues because a great majority of valuable and knowledgeable people avoid these lists. Just look at the instructor lists at conventions and conferences - and see how few actually participate. Yet many of them continue teaching, writing, publishing and sharing their knowledge at a great cost in time and sometimes even money to themselves. As long as these lists remain practical - well, the PTG should support them. But to demand that the PTG should finance them after they will have become impractical so that a self-selected group of members could continue to grace us with their knowledge at their convenience and avoid a small investment in time to learn a new medium is an affront to all those who make great personal sacrifices to share their knowledge. Now who has it backwards? I say, step back, give it some time, see where the new format goes - and then revisit the new setup. Because this change has been forced on us by circumstances, things cannot stay the same, and the changes involve a lot more than just your personal concerns. Things are still in flux and it is too soon to make final judgments. If the new format does in fact flop, the PTG will have no choice but to make provisions to retain the old one (it can't be done on the current basis - that horse left the barn) - or look for a better new one (if there is still money and energy left - our resources are not infinite). Israel Stein > > With respect to Allen and those who made great efforts to bring this new > > site online, nobody is disparaging them and I for one am truly sorry if > > anything I said was taken that way by them or anyone else. > > > > Great efforts on a bad idea are still great efforts and can be applauded. > > But they don?t make the idea any better. And while we may very well > > disagree on the merits of the idea, I would hope that people (including > > those who made the great efforts) could keep those things separate. > > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC