As list co-owner I am aware that strong feelings exist over dis-forum's
structure (or lack of it). I am also aware that they are divided
between those who want to see it refined or broken up and those who
see its general nature as its strength. Such feelings usually emerge
at a time when there is a lot of mail, as at present, or while a
particular issue is being debated. It does not seem to matter whether
it is technology or access to buildings or what, as soon as more than
a few postings occur the suggestion emerges that they should be hived
off.
My personal view inclines towards keeping dis-forum as a common
conduit and that if an issue blossoms, as at present, then that
simply shows the strength of feeling there is so its debate is
appropriate. I did try for HEFCE funding last September to refine the
structure down stream, ie after passing through dis-forum mail would
be refined in some ay so that those who wanted to home in on certain
issues could do so. I also feel frustrated by the way that issues
recycle every year or so (like exams) yet no accumulation of wisdom
takes place. I have not given up on the idea but it would take
funding.
I incline to the view that we should make good use of the subject
line to make explicit what the contents refers to so that readers can
delete without having to read. If we did refine the structure, this
was one way I thought of going so that the redirected mail could be
sent automatically using key words in the subject line.
Finally, I share EA's worry concerning TASC's desire to create a
"clearing house" if that means something physical. It would be ironic
if the HEFCE's organisation which advises on advanced use of
technology failed to see what it had to offer in drawing on the
distributed expertise, which dis-forum's users display. I cannot
imagine how an equivalent bunch of expertise could ever be housed
under one roof. Paul and I may "own" dis-forum in a technical sense
but it clearly belongs to its users in reality. I would like to see
the formation of an editorial board of specialists whose collective
responsibility would be to support specific issues and manage the
associated mail. But I would not want even this if it then made anyone
else feel left out or second division in some way.
Please help me as the TASC bid could be a way to give us what we
all want.
Dave Laycock MBE
Head of CCPD, Chair of NFAC
Computer Centre for People with Disabilities
University of Westminster
72 Great Portland Street
London W1N 5AL
tel. 0171-911-5161
fax. 0171-911-5162
WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|