Re: Misconception

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:02:39 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Grant Wilson wrote:
> With regards to the *poor policy*.
> What I said reflects no discredit whatsoever upon the efforts of the person
> now maintaining the list. But *somebody* said, "Go ahead, thanks for taking
> over." The *somebody* should have checked to see if the server and software
> would support the requirements of a list such as this.

Grant, it's possible that subscribing to "dozens of lists", as you say you
do, especially on digest mode as you apparently prefer, you have missed
crucial aspects and events of this one.

The "somebody" you so freely put on the carpet is Steve Avery, founder of
the list, and the patient, brilliant, tireless and *single-handed* deus ex
machina of this adventure for 3 long years. Now, since you are a person of
sufficient intelligence to work in high-end computerism, or so you have
implied, perhaps you will focus for a minute, not on your own dyspepsia
and spleen over your small personal inconvenience, but on the feelings
Steve must have had when the enormous burden of running his and our
beloved list was no longer supportable. I don't mean simply that there was
never a weekend away without disaster, sturm and drang in the interim, or
even the personal burnout, but that his access to the equipment was coming
to a close.

Do you suppose he just tossed a coin into the air and when it fell in the
underbrush said "OK, it's yours!" Or would you imagine he put out a long,
patient , difficult inquiry, which in fact lasted for over a year, that
the ultimate choice depended on many factors. My hunch is that, after
access to a system that could handle the job in however minimum fashion,
the next qualification was a personality that could weather exactly such
snits as this one. But here's another question for consideration by your
advanced intelligence: How many "offers" do you suppose he chose among?
How many people do you suppose there were among perhaps some 50 activists
(I don't count on lurkers for that) who had the facility, the ability, the
energy and the time? The time to donate for free?

Someone, perhaps Gord himself (lordy we have to watch our spelling here --
NO leaving out the "r"!), said it was either this set up or goodbye list.
Or did you miss that remark? It was yesterday, if I recall correctly.

Which brings me to some possible additions to list "netiquette."

1.Nobody on digest mode should make a complaint except in reference to his
own server.

2. Complaints for a first post will not be accepted.

However, you say,

> One of the objectives of your forum is to
> encourage interest in the alternative processes. To do that, you must
> attract persons who are, relative to yourselves, ignorant of the craft.
> Hopefully, exposure to your more knowledgable conversations will elicit in
> those persons a desire to become involved at some level -- perhaps a
> practitioners, perhaps as buyers, perhaps only as non-involved, but
> gallery-going, well-wishers. To refer to them as *lurkers* will discourage
> that involvement and ultimately defeat the broader goals of the forum.

I believe that "lurker" is a generic term, well entrenched in e-language,
and that it is applied, as a rule, without prejudice. I doubt we would
change that, if we could. But your point about the function of lurkers and
lurking is well taken, and I withdraw my total dismissal. However, for
one to come on as you did, with a first post like yours, does little
credit to the breed.

> Best wishes to you all.

And best wishes to you, too.

Judy