 |
 |
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/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%