North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[david.maxwell@dal.ca]

I too have been a dues-paying member of NAFEX for some 30 years, and continue 
to be.  So 
my comments are not motivated by the ability to get information free via the 
Web, rather than 
"paying" for it in NAFEX dues.  I have been following this debate with 
interest for a 
considerable time, (long before it became apparent to the members of the 
listserv that 
NAFEX had actually divorced themselves from it).  As well, I have 
introspected a bit on my 
own use of both the listserv and the new NAFEX website.  (This is not say 
that my actions 
are any more valid than anybody else.  But I suspect that I am probably 
fairly representative 
of many, if not the majority.  And the fact that the majority of subscribers 
to the listserv are 
not NAFEX members supports this.)

I have in actual fact gone to the NAFEX website only twice - once to look at 
it to see what a 
fine job Deb was doing, (ie. a critical evaluation of the technical aspects 
of the website itself) 
(And, I would add that she really has done a superb job; she is a very 
skilled webmaster, and 
deserves a very hearty vote of gratitude for the immense amount of work she 
has obviously 
put into it.)  The second time was when I was trying to get contact 
information for NAFEX 
executive members - information I could not get from the listserv, or any 
other source. 
Parenthetically when I tried to look at the Forum on the website I was 
blocked by technical 
issues, (ie. I was unable to get into it), so I really have nothing to 
compare the listserv to.  But 
I suspect that even had I been able to access the Forum I would not in fact 
use it, for the 
same reason I virtually never use similar fora in other areas of my interest, 
to wit that these 
are all "pull technologies".  That is, one has to log on and go looking to 
determine whether 
there is material of interest, or even anything new at all.  A listserv is a 
"push technology"; the 
information is delivered to the end-user in a form which permits rapid and 
efficient 
assessment of the relevance of the postings, equally permitting one to stop 
at this stage if 
nothing of relevance is displayed. Call it sloth or call it efficient time 
usage, if you want to 
condition a response from me of explicitly logging on to the website, 
followed by linking to a 
forum, (a 2 step process), you are going to have to reward me with something 
I cannot get 
more easily elsewhere, with markedly less effort, and the reward is going to 
have to be 
predictable and consistent.  (I am not going to go looking "just in case" 
something new has 
been posted.)  So, at an absolute minimum, unless some form of email 
notification of new 
postings is implemented, this Forum is a lost cause.

Now, this is not necessarily a tragedy, (other than it having obviously 
required an immense 
amount of work on Deb's part, work which may have been mis-directed.)  It is 
my personal 
belief that the information-sharing function is best served precisely by an 
open listserv, such 
as the present one.  Personally I think the decision to divorce NAFEX from 
this listserv, and 
try to create what is arguably a competitor for the same function may not 
have been wise. 
(Another strike against the Forum is the increased technical complexity 
inherent in it.  It is 
unusable to me because I can't get into it, and this flows from this same 
complexity.  Even 
when Deb sorts out precisely why I can't get in, and fixes it, she will have 
lost a substantial 
number of potential subscribers who can't be bothered to pursue it, and she 
will still have a 
potentially unstable login process - unstable simply because it involves 
several systems 
which are expected to talk to each other seamlessly. (They never do))

So, my own bias would be to critically examine the functions which one is 
trying to serve, 
retain for the NAFEX website those things which can best be implemented in 
this setting, and 
leave for other technologies those things which are better performed through 
them.  (And this 
includes things like Facebook, which I have no interest in using, but 
obviously does serve 
some useful function for some others.)

But I was not in any way involved in any of this, and it is wholly 
inappropriate for me level any 
criticism of those who were charged with making these strategic decisions, 
and who I am 
certain did what they in their best and wisest judgement thought most 
desirable.