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.