Me:
I agree, sometimes one is better, sometimes the other. If e-mail was
automatically entered as a (maybe tempory) node in a structured way
and new nodes automatically echoed to the list we could have the best
of both worlds. (PS. new PCP nodes and major updates should be
notified with a title and URL on the list please!, we don't always
have time or memory to browse the "new" list).
This would mean, some distinguishing between,
dynamic/changable/disputed/e-mail nodes and the more
static/consensus/PCP nodes. Maybe each node could have a
"permenancy/certainty" score, with all e-mail nodes starting at 0 and
working up only when levels of consensus was reached. If people were
very keen, I could try to implement a node version of e-mail on the
list here (people would have to be reasonably keen because it would
involve some work!). The the agreed PCP nodes and network
representation of more transient opinions could be kept seperate.
> I'm convinced that this is not necessarily the fault of the MEDIUM or
> TECHNOLOGY. Email is just a tool, which must be used well or poorly. The
> key is DISCIPLINE and ATTITUDE: argue points through, keep a stack and make
> sure it's clean, always move forward, remember where you've been, don't
> take or give things personally, etc.
This is true, DISCIPLINE and ATTITUDE are overidingly important, but
the medium limits the sturucture and does have an effect.
> Let me suggest that what's needed is a MODERATOR, to keep things
> fair, to > keep people on task, to point out inconsistencies and
> weaknesses on all
>
> ..stuff on the virtues of an ideal moderator deleted and agreed upon...
>
> Clearly I feel strongly about this, and obviously feel that I'm the
> right > man for the job ;->. I just hate to commit to do something
> which might > require too much time right now (amazing how I can
> avoid my vaunted > Editorial responsibilities!).
>
> How's about this: is this a good idea? If so, do we have a good topic? If
> so, does anyone else volunteer? If not, I'll give it a shot.
Please give it a shot, it is ultimately an impossible task as the
moderation is always relevant to the subject (note the overriding
importance of being the chair of a comittee, even though this
restricts your right to vote!).
In a real sense we should all try to be our own moderators (to a
considerable extent debate is impossible without this). Maybe there
should be a panel of three active moderators, who would have to reach
a consensus or something like that....(just thoughts).
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html