HAHAHAHA! See my point, now, folks?
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Joshua Kronengold <mneme@xxxxxx
Don't see why anyone would be; it's a pointless discussion.
Without an Official backing of a new method, yes it IS pointless. Part of that backing would be disabling this listserv, to force a transition. Failing to do that will make a schism in the community, as some stick with (conservative | Official | action-less) listserv while other move to the (more functional | more flexible | expandable) web groupware.
People can set up as many online fora they want. If people go to
them, grats, you're successful.
"Go ahead and sit in the corner alone" is what you're saying/implying/threatening. And, yep, that's what will happen, with no Official backing.
But one e-mail, followed by a bit of list admin work in a month or so, would virtually guarantee the success of a Web 2.0 transition for the community.
I suspect an Icehouse livejournal would be sooner accepted than a
forum, since so many of us are already livejournal addicts.
No, Facebook! Everybody's on Facebook, and we don't have to make a new profile at some other dumb site!
No, Friendster! It's the original and it's still the best!
No, no, no, MYSPACE! MySpace so totally pwns Friendster that everyone's moving in droves!
HELL, no, Blogspot! If we're rreally all-about posting and idea development, gotta go with a blog site!
No, no, wait, you're all wrong: LinkedIn is clearly more professional, and it has TONS of functionality over those "kiddie" community sites!
Oh, come on! Yahoo is the oldest and the most feature-rich!
B-S! Yahoo barely gives you any space--Google gives away GIGABYTES for both the group and for each member's email!
My (tiresome) point is that community organization IS NOT a "just go do it" thing, as you seem to agree. If we really cared about effecting change, we'd:
* Inform the broader community of the open discussion (i.e. other lists, the Rabbit wiki and maybe even IGH.org).
* Demand Official recognition of any move upon which the group majority agrees.
* List desired functionality, prioritize it, and note which sites/services/applications best-fulfill those priorities.
* Appoint site administrators based on time available, trustworthiness, experience, and gentility.
* Create the site; and as our first order of business, come to some accord about look and feel.
* Develop File and Pages organization standards, before we have stuff scattered to the four winds (i.e. what every wiki must do).
That's all opt-in, community-driven activity: if someone just wants the old listserv, none of it matters: go sign up, change your subscription setting, and forget the web interface and offerings exist. Only one bit matters to LL: ratifying the overarching desires of the community, and supporting them by removing competing offerings (the lists).
It would be nice... too bad folks would rather dig-in heels and be reticent than either (a) get out of the way or (b) help improve or provide input upon the overall experience for those who DO care. Hmmm... maybe "community" is the wrong word for us, after all...?