RE Listserv

[Israel Stein]

Before this list (or its successor) gets Balkanized into mini-lists
delineated by arbitrary subject matter divisions, I would like to ask
y'all to consider the following:

Many separate and different levels of discussion can co-exist on the same
list, as long as the subscribers understand the proper use of subject
lines. There's no reason to have "advanced", "beginner" etc. listserves.
As long as it is clear from the subject line what the post is about, a
subscriber can delete without downloading or  reading whatever is not of
interest to him/her. For example, those who found recent discussions over
their heads could have deleted everything labeled "stanwood" or "Inertia"
once they found out what the thread is about. And those who feel they
want to deal with something more "elementary" or "practical" are always
free to introduce a topic that is of interest to them. This works very
well, as long as everyone properly identifies their posts or points out a
shift in the thread when it occurs. [For example: Subject: Re: Hammers
(was: Stanwood)].

A periodic posting explaining the use of subject lines (and other fine
points of listserve etiquette) for the benefit of newcomers could be very
helpful.

If total volume is a problem, could there not be found a host that can
accomodate it? I confess, I'm rather puzzled about the problem at BYU. I
have for close to two years been on another list with at least triple the
volume of this one, also hosted by a university, where the problem never
came up.

I sympathize with the university technicians who feel that the list is
not what it used to be. But no list ever stays the same. No matter how
you try to define and delimit the subject matter or the orientation of
the list, it will change. Partly because new subscribers will push into
new areas, and partly because the interests of the original subscribers
will develop into new directions. Any list will go through times that may
be unsatisfying to some or possibly even most subscribers. A widely based
list with a multiplicity of perspectives has a much better chance of
developing new, interesting threads. A narrowly defined list can much
more easily stagnate. Let's face it - someone who is interested in
discussing more esoteric matters may also be the one with the best
solution to an elementary problem.

We certainly should all be grateful to BYU, Jack Reeves and the
university technicians for getting all this started. And if they feel
that they need a list of their own, well, so be it. I feel, however, that
no list in our field can be completely successful without strong
representation from the university community - university technicians are
a valuable repository of skill, knowledge and experience that's often
inaccessible to the rest of us (no, I'm not one). Will enough of you stay
on both lists to make it worthwhile?

A proliferation of piano technology lists will lead to lots of multiple
postings, disagreements as to what belongs on which list, threads that
evolve away from the "official" subject matter of the list and in the
long run to more e-mailbox clutter (especially for those who try to keep
up with more than one list). In my opinion, with proper use of subject
lines (and attention to other points of netiquette), a large and
inclusive list gives the best opportunity to get the best response - or
set of responses - to any question that might come up. It is also the
best place to thoroughly discuss any pianotech-related topic. Multiple
lists will just cause multiple hassles. Any sub-group can easily discuss
whatever concerns it's members alone withing the framework of a larger
list if the limited nature of the discussion is made clear in the subject
line. Some lists even develop a shorthand by which various types of posts
can be easily identified.

Also - I don't think it is a good idea to have the list echo to a
newsgroup (rec.music.makers.pianotech or whatever) since that would make
it too easily accessible to non-technicians.

Israel Stein