Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Rachel Cox <rachel AT hesketh.com>]

At 06:56 PM 3/14/00 -0500, mdthomas AT mindspring.com wrote:
[snip]
>...In short, it's a feedback mechanism. When
>I'm talking to someone, I can get a good feeling
>about whether or not they like what I'm saying.
>In email it's not so easy...

Maybe not, but it's a heck of a lot more informative than an
anonymous encourage/discourage mechanism. I'm very uncomfortable
with this idea. It's not *discussion*, is it - it's just "hey,
I do/don't like what you said," which isn't very helpful to
either the one who's being encouraged/discouraged, the one
who's responding (s/he doesn't really have to think through
the response - just shoot off an anonymous "yes/no") or to
the group. What possible good can it do? If you like what
someone has to say, tell them, and tell them why. If you don't
like what someone has to say, tell them *and tell them why*. Have
a discussion! Have a community! Are we all at least agreed that
one thing Internetworkers is about is community?

 Something like
>this may or may not help, but it *is* a context-
>free way of addressing the "what's the list
>for" problem.

How is it a way to address "what's the list for"? Just by shushing
people who talk about things other people don't want to talk about?
I've got an easier way - the people who don't want to talk about
it ignore the thread. It's a snap. And why do we want it to be
context-free? IMNSHO, context is important in determining what a
community is about. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

Cheers!
-Rachel
_____________________________________________________________________
tired of being an underappreciated functionary in a soulless machine?
        hesketh.com is hiring:  <http://hesketh.com/careers/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rachel Cox | voice: 919.834.2552 x16 | http://www.hesketh.com