I agree with John.
 
I deleted the Fake Blood responses which I now regret because I don't know what Essex said!
 
Best wishes
Sharon
 
Sharon Bristow
 
Learning Manager
Renaissance South East
 
c/o Hampshire County Council Museum and Archives Service
Chilcomb House
Chilcomb Lane
Winchester
SO23 8RD
 
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
07843367142
 
www.museumse.org.uk <http://www.museumse.org.uk/>

________________________________

From: List for discussion of issues in museum education in the UK. on behalf of Jon Pratty
Sent: Mon 07/09/2009 09:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Fake blood & full inboxes


Martin
 
My brief contribution to the thread wasn't intended to annoy, just to open out a point that seems to run through quite a few of the published list responses: that some contributors to this lively, positive and interesting list like to read what others have to say. 'Reply to sender only' could possibly sometimes result in some real gems of wisdom being missed.
 
JP
 
Jon Pratty
 
Publisher/Manager
Disability Arts Online
[log in to unmask]
www.disabilityartsonline.org.uk <http://www.disabilityartsonline.org.uk/>
Twitter: follow us @disabilityarts
Facebook: join our group http://tinyurl.com/kkks5e
Check our FB fanpage: http://tinyurl.com/m43x86
 
Mobile: 07739 287392
9/10 Jew Street, Brighton, BN1 1UT
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: List for discussion of issues in museum education in the UK. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Martin Bazley
Sent: 07 September 2009 07:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fake blood & full inboxes



Jon

 

Your message:

As of 12.17pm, I make that about 14 to 4 emails in favour of openess on the list, rather than a closed approach to messages.

 

These days, I think people expect more flexibility in group communication systems, possibly becuase we've seen what social media can do for us. We tend to make our own choices about what is of interest to us, rather than expecting/allowing other people to make those choices.

ENDS

 

As far as I know, no one has advocated a 'closed approach to messages', whatever that might mean. (What does that mean?) Open discussion is great. It's what I am engaging in now. It's just that, as this is the GEM list, I would rather be discussing something to do with museum education. Incidentally I thought the suggestion made earlier about using another list was a great idea...

 

OK, let's take each of your points one at a time.

As of 12.17pm, I make that about 14 to 4 emails in favour of openess on the list, rather than a closed approach to messages.

Well, that's probably because most people are a little more thoughtful and have not fired off emails to the whole list without considering the fact that they are posting to over 1000 people, the vast majority of whom have better things to do than participate in this discussion. (I feel pretty confident in that last assertion).

 

In fact (ahem.. wait for it) counting all the messages (including those sent off list - you don't have to send every message to everyone all the time) to me (and to Steve, who made the original request for more considerate communication) the tally currently stands comfortably in favour of 'considerate behaviour' - as opposed to sending every response to the whole list.

 

Here is an extract from one of them:

I'd just like to point out that the last email on the "filling up inboxes" topic from John Pratty rather annoys me. Choosing to use the numbers of emails for and against on this subject as some kind of quazi survey shows precisely nothing about what the majority actually think.

Of course those people who are for it will come across with a stronger voice because they have chosen to send an email to the whole list saying so - those of us who don't agree are keeping quiet precisely because we don't want to fill up other people's inboxes!!!

 

 

But in any case, simply counting messages for/against isn't very helpful, because

(a) GEM list subscribers are not in fact holed up in two opposing camps

(b) quite a few people won't have read any of these messages yet, so won't have 'voted'

(c) the responses would be skewed towards those who like mainly posting to the list as opposed to those who mainly read the messages

 

Suppose we did an exhaustive survey, either on the list, or through a postal survey of GEM members, or whatever, and we arrive at a definitive set of data on who favoured this and who favoured that 'approach' - what would we do then? Create a different list for each approach? We all have to share the same list. Indeed it is the sheer number and diversity of subscribers help make the GEM list so useful and enjoyable.

 

The second set of points:

These days, I think people expect more flexibility in group communication systems, possibly becuase we've seen what social media can do for us. We tend to make our own choices about what is of interest to us, rather than expecting/allowing other people to make those choices.

 

'These days' - (implication: people who don't think like this are out of date).

 

'flexibility in group communication systems' - it's not the system, it's the way it is being used that is under scrutiny. Or is your point is simply to change the list setting, so that hitting Reply goes to the whole list, rather than having to use the Reply All button - does that stifle discussion?

 

' possibly becuase we've seen what social media can do for us' - Well, then use social media. Set up a Twitter feed for GEM members, or for museum education. Or, create some other Web 2.0 enhanced version of the GEM list and anyone who wants to can subscribe to that version as well.

 

' We tend to make our own choices about what is of interest to us, rather than expecting/allowing other people to make those choices. '

Who is that you feel is making choices about what is of interest to you? No messages are blocked. All I am suggesting is to think before pressing Send.

If someone sends a message to the whole list saying that they 'would like to hear about education policies as well' (instead of just asking the person who posted the question), they are making a choice in posting that to the whole list, that this message is 'of interest to us'.

 

 

My impression is that what some people were saying in the recent debate is that they want to feel that not all messages to the GEM list have to be serious, and that is nice to have some light relief from time to time. I agree, in principle. And some messages are really amusing, to some people. But with so many subscribers there is inevitiably great variation in people's sense of humour, and a substantial proportion of list members find 'funny' messages annoying. So who should determine what kind of messages are posted to the list? There is no easy answer to that. Messages are not pre-moderated, they appear straight away, and that's as it should be, as it helps sustain discussions. The main point of the GEM list is to exchange information and discussion about museum education.

 

My suggestion for the way we use the list is based on my experience of running it for over ten years, helping individual people with various technical and non-technical issues and queries, and having tuned in to pretty much every exchange during that time. So here it is, your cut-out-and-keep, credit-card sized summary of GEM list etiquette. You can subscribe to it or ignore it completely:

 

The GEM list is great for discussions, and also great for asking a large number of people for specific information.

+ If the original message is just a request for a snippet of information, reply to the person making the request.

They could post a summary to the list, so saving everyone else who is interested from having to collate all the info for themselves (and a discussion might follow) or forward direct to the two or three people who asked for it.

+ If you want to know about it too, email the person who made the request.

+ If you are making a point in an ongoing discussion, post to the whole list.

 

 

Last time this topic flared up on the list (again, arising out of a request from someone, directed at a few, to moderate their behaviour) the only sensible way to 'end' the " discussion about discussion" was to stop posting responses. The few who were pushing for 'more openness' then got bored and as far as I know have not produced any interesting topics since. It seemed that for them, confrontation and profile-raising were the primary impulses, rather than actually having anything meaningful, or even genuinely funny to say. (OK, I admit, that is a wild, unsubstantiated generalisation, but has some truth in it I think.)

 

The GEM list has facilitated plenty of great exchanges, and will I am sure continue to do so for a very long time to come.

Incidentally, all the messages from 1998 onwards are available at:

www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/gem.html

 

 

Martin

GEM list owner

 

 

 

From: List for discussion of issues in museum education in the UK. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Pratty
Sent: 04 September 2009 12:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fake blood & full inboxes

 

As of 12.17pm, I make that about 14 to 4 emails in favour of openess on the list, rather than a closed approach to messages.

 

These days, I think people expect more flexibility in group communication systems, possibly becuase we've seen what social media can do for us. We tend to make our own choices about what is of interest to us, rather than expecting/allowing other people to make those choices.

 

Jon Pratty

 

Publisher/Manager

Disability Arts Online

[log in to unmask]

www.disabilityartsonline.org.uk <http://www.disabilityartsonline.org.uk/>

Twitter: follow us @disabilityarts

Facebook: join our group http://tinyurl.com/kkks5e

Check our FB fanpage: http://tinyurl.com/m43x86

 

Mobile: 07739 287392

9/10 Jew Street, Brighton, BN1 1UT