As one of the listowners (Keith Russell down under is the other), and a
general lurker on the phd-design list, I wanted to make a point or two
about the behaviour of subscribers during this particular period of
debate.

I monitor several discussion lists. Many of them never upset anyone --
this is simply because posts are so rare and therefore there are no
arguments. Generally such lists do not retain a large number of
subscribers. It follows that they are not interesting, and do not
contribute in any meaningful way to the field of design either. For
lists to be successful, they have to be nurtured. On active lists
there is an occasional post that piques subscribers' interests, and
away we roll for several days or weeks with debate that is interesting,
informative and stimulating. At other times there are fallow periods
with notices etc. Sometimes, somebody takes it upon themselves to
stimulate a discussion around a theme that interests them, and might
interest others too.

You will all know that phd-design is not moderated -- that is, whatever
you send to the server is distributed immediately to all 1200 or so
subscribers. The list owners have chosen that this discussion list be
open to anyone who cares to join our community, there is no censoring
of what people say, nor when they can say it.

We are in the middle of a well thought through debate that has been set
up on this discussion list. I hope that many will have found this
debate relevant to their interests. A large number of people have
signed up recently to see this debate for themselves. The formal part
of this debate -- through the introductions of and presentations by key
speakers -- will finish in a couple of weeks time. The debate around
the issues aired here may carry on beyond that date of course, however
the point I want to make clear is that we are part way through that
'formal' process. I intend to ensure that the formal proceedings
continue in the way we intended.

In an open list such as this, subscribers are free to post whatever
they like. However, with this freedom comes a responsibility to behave
suitably. At the outset, our convenor Ken Friedman stated the ground
rules for this particular debate. He has reinforced this by, for
example, suggesting periodically when new speakers would arrive on the
stage, and how we should respond to them. This means attending to
posts by editing and quoting appropriately, summarising several points
into a single post where possible, and other measures designed to
reduce the burden of sifting and reading so much incoming mail. It
also involves 'netiquette' -- this is usually taken to mean responding
professionally to comments, having respect for others' views
(even/especially when you don't agree with them!), and not being
frivolous. This does not mean that there cannot be robust arguments
and disagreements, though I would expect such disagreements to be
supported by evidence and argued accordingly.

We are running into some areas in this debate where I would ask
protagonists to reflect on the nature of this debate and behaviours
that are appropriate.

One such area is the level of debate. This is a discussion with a
serious intention, though I hope not humourless. It requires folks to
use a little care in constructing well argued posts instead of shooting
from the lip as we might do in other on-line contexts. The dynamic of
this list can be upset so easily by a small number of people behaving
badly.

Another area is on-list and off-list discussions. Along with others, I
prefer that discussions are public, that is what this list is for. As
list owner, from time to time I write to subscribers off-list with
suggestions or encouragement, or answering queries, even mentoring
folks in how they might express something. I know that Ken has been
doing the same as convenor of this debate, and it is something that he
does generously. I would expect those discussions to be kept off list.
  They are the equivalent of a private letter, and should not be made
public. I would never think of intentionally making public a private
post, and I expect the same behaviour from others.

Yet another area is relevance. Irrespective of any positions we may
take individually, some recent posts -- while purporting to be part of
the debate -- have been simply irrelevant. For example, I would love
to respond about left-right brain processing, but will not do so during
this debate -- perhaps another time.

Most posts over the past couple of weeks have been fine. We have
another couple of weeks of debate and my aim is to keep those fine too.
  I ask for your help and tolerance in achieving this.

David




ARi_____________________________________________

Dr David Durling
Director, Advanced Research Institute
Staffordshire University
Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK
tel: +44 (0)1782 294556 (direct)
tel: +44 (0)1782 294602 (ARi office)
fax: +44 (0)1782 294530
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.ari.staffs.ac.uk
________________________________________________