Barb said:
>I LIKE the original, current format of the List. It permits us as writers and
>readers to take a number of options...directions... while online - either one
>direction at a time or simultaneously with any of those directions easily
>controlled by the individual's DELETE key when reading.
You can still do this with more than one list.
>The PD List-owner, Barbara Patterson, had many choices of format and direction
>she could make at the time she set up this List. In addition, it's membership
>has also contributed to the direction the List goes from day-to-day,
>week-to-week. Barb Patterson AND the majority of the List members have opted
>over the past 3+ years to pretty much stick with the original format while
>taking into account the vast and varied backgrounds and interests of the
>groups as a whole.
When discussion forums start they naturally start off broad and then split
into specialised subsections. The original list charter is still very valid
- but the number of people who want to enjoy our discussions is becoming so
large as to become a problem. Apart from small tweaks like asking people to
use more reasonable subject lines, in the end the only way to deal with
increasingly overwhelming volume is to create specialised subject-oriented
lists.
[snip]
>Often these "side-trips" present subjects which are marginally related to PD
>if at all, but none-the-less seem to interest a wide number of our membership.
> Have no interest in 'em? Click on that delete key. Not interested in
>reading the occasional joke? Click on the delete key. And those periodic,
>unpredictable, spontaneously generated flights of fancy? Right.. there's that
>ol delete key.
That assumes people:
- have a powerful enough machine & cheap enough Internet connection
that downloading twice enough messages than you have to is OK.
- are happy dealing with quite large quantities of text. Some people
find this very intimidating.
>It seems to me that it's more reasonable, more democratic, and just plain
>NICER to permit individuals to post what's on their minds, while recalling the
>main thrust of the List. This offers us freedom of choice by permitting us to
>pick and chose amongst the subjects and the posters we care to read or delete.
Maybe it would be nicer to structure ourselves in such a way as to allow
people a choice?
>Sooooo... I think rather than splitting the list, we should continue the List
>as it is, keeping in mind that it's a courtesy to others in our Cyber-family
>to keep updating the subject-line when we have a "subject drift."
>
>I also think that patience and compassion is called for - no matter how
>important an individual we believe we are, and/or how limited our online time
>is for whatever reason.
This is a problem we keep hitting when we discuss what to do about the
rising traffic of this list - people genuinely feel that splitting the list
will break up "the family" we have created.
I would suggest that will not happen - it will make the family stronger,
and allow more people to join in. Do not forget that the people who
disagree with the current structure of PD mailing lists aren't part of this
conversation - they've already left this list, disenfranchised by our
unwillingness to confront a very difficult issue.
Most of the larger PD organisations have specialist groups. Most of them
have newsletters, which themselves are split into sections - and people
choose which ones they recieve, and which ones they read.
Similarly, there are four PD-related lists around:
- PARKINSN (this one)
- CARE
- PARKLISTE
- PDUK
The existance of four lists doesn't do us any harm. Splitting stuff up into
manageable chunks is natural. Why not also PDLIFE and PDDRUGS?
Simon
--------- My opinions are my own, NIP's opinions are theirs ----------
Simon J. Coles Email: [log in to unmask]
New Information Paradigms Work Phone: +44 1344 778783
http://www.nipltd.com/ Work Fax: +44 1344 772510
=============== Life is too precious to take seriously ===============
