Dear all,

Having been a member of this list for some years, I also felt that it
was important to show that some members like me (and Richard) do find
it worthwhile to see responses to requests particularly as the
'collated responses' responses precludes discussion where it might be
both useful and interesting from our professional viewpoints.

The GEM list is of course a busy list but subscribers ought to be
aware of this by looking at the archives before they subscribe or soon
afterwards and judge for themselves how they wish to deal with the
traffic.  There are options to read the list on the jiscmail website,
to receive a daily digest, or simply hit the delete key without
opening emails in response to queries you are not interested in.

I will make a plug for Googlemail here as this mail application groups
emails by 'conversation' so, as long as the subject remains the same,
all emails in response are neatly grouped together.  It means you can
delete an entire conversation if you are not interested in one go.  An
excellent way to manage mailing list subs.

Also, from the point of view of someone who works on their own, groups
like GEM and MCG are one of the major sources of contact with
colleagues and friends in the sector.  I enjoy reading the requests as
it gives me an idea of what is going on in other places even if I can
offer nothing in return.  Reading discussion may also spark new ideas
and be of benefit not only to the person asking the question but to
those just observing.  Serendipity also puts people who don't know
each other in touch.

Lastly, it would be a real shame if all we had on GEM was an archive
which listed lots of questions and the odd email with concatenated
replies.  In this sense, I encourage you to take the long view.  This
list is not just of benefit to us now, but an archive for future
museum and education professionals.  Looking through the archive you
can see what the concerns of the moment were and how people were
dealing with them.  This is important!

While I do concur in part with Martin regarding the request by those
asking questions about specific things to thinking about asking people
to reply off-list I, personally, hope it doesn't become the norm.
However, I do prefer that immediately hitting reply goes to the
original sender as on a few occasions in the past, people have
accidently sent personal emails to the whole list inadvertently.  This
at least makes you consciously think about 'replying to all'.

All the best,
Tehmina

2008/11/18 Richard Ellam <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear Martin, Ruth, and all
>
> For reasons which I hope will be clear I am breaking protocol and replying
> to all members of the GEM List, because I think that Ruth's original request
> and Martin's response present only one side of an important argument about
> how lists such as this are used, and I would like to briefly put the
> argument for the other side, that is having all replies go to all
> subscribers.
>
> I write as a member of about a dozen lists, some work related, others not.
> The majority of these lists work on what I will call the public reply model,
> where all postings go to all subscribers.   I think this the better approach
> for several reasons:
>
> 1. If replies are public they are effectively subject to peer review: the
> people who reply to queries are not always the most expert - they may be the
> most prolix, but that's not the same thing at all. If replies are subject to
> public scrutiny, then mistakes will be picked up. This process, if done in
>  polite and professional way, benefits all: it ensures that the questioner
> gets the best advice, it hopefully educates those who innocently post
> mistaken advice and it also may stimulate discussion.
>
> 2. Discussion is important: there are not always cut and dried answers to
> questions, and there may be legitamate professional differences about how to
> proceed. Airing these in public effectively provides a means of informal
> CPD, and the result of a discussion of an issue on the GEM list may help to
> form a new consensus with the community about what the best approach to a
> particular issue is.
>
> 3. Its not always obvious that just because when a thread starts its not of
> interest to you that it will stay that way. Public discussion offers the
> opportunity for serendipity. On a number of occasions I've gone back to
> posting on topics which were not relevant to me at the time, but became so
> later, and got useful pointers from the postings. If these had been private
> between the questioner and respondents I would not have benefitted.
>
> 4. The 'send collected responses' approach that GEM currently seems to
> encourage makes work for the questioner in collating and distributing the
> replies. Of course this approach also precludes the kind of valuable
> discussion that I've talked about above. If people feel that THEY are too
> busy to read GEM postings then why do they assume that the poster of a
> question will have the time to collate and distribute replies?
>
> 5. The problem of having your inbox cluttered up with lots of postings from
> the GEM List is really a matter of how you organise your e-mail. All mail
> programmes allow the automatic sorting of e-mails into different inboxes.
> I've got a separate in-box for each list I subscribe to, and so if I don't
> have the time or the inclination to read stuff that I've been sent it simply
> sits there until I get time to catch up. If all my mailing list mail just
> ran into my inbox I'd feel like I was drowning in junk, and would not be
> able to follow any of the threads. By managing my e-mail I can keep on top
> of it.
>
> 6. Answering questions on GEM, and participating in discussions is an act of
> altruism - there is no reward. Martin touched on the point that some people
> will only reply if they think that everyone will see they have done so.
> Given that there is no other reward for participating in the GEM list than
> having your name attached to replies this seems me to be fair enough. If
> people will more readily give of their advice in a public setting, where
> they get some recognition for their expertise then I think they should be
> encouraged to do so. If their 'expertise' turns out to be less than they
> think then the peer review mechanism should sort them out, and maybe
> persuade them to be less free with bad advice.
>
> I said I'd be brief - I am in danger of breaking that commitment so I'll
> stop.
>
> Comments are, of course welcome, and please, Martin, can we have this
> discussion, if no others, in public?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> Richard Ellam.
>



-- 
Tehmina Goskar, MA AMA
[log in to unmask]

Historical and Museum Research
Web Communication and Learning Development