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
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