2017-04-28 16:06 GMT-05:00 D. Joe <sugarl...@etrumeus.com>: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0000, Caryl Bigenho wrote: > > > Second... when you reply to an email, unless it is private SLOB business, > > please be sure you have included iaep in the addresses. > > I would say: Include IAEP if it's IAEP business (and yes, so long as its > IAEP business suitable for public consumption). We've seen a *lot* of > crossposting recently between IAEP and sugar-devel that probably wasn't > necessary, and raises the noise floor on both sides. It's always possible > to > forward something later, it's effectively impossible to unsend something > (the growing pile of ineffective "recall" messages I've accumulated > over the years notwithstanding). > > > Otherwise your messages look blank to everyone who isn't a SLOB member. > > I have no idea what this means. If you're not on the list of direct > recipients (via any of the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: headers), and you're not a > recipient via your subscriptions to one or more of the targetted mailing > lists, you should see nothing at all. > > Seeing a "blank" message sounds like an error at some point in the mail > delivery or display functions and less a question of addressing. > > You should either get the message, in full, or not at all. > > > Please understand, goals are NOT the same as objectives. They are much > more > > general. Objectives are designed to help achieve the goals and have a > definite > > form... who will do what by when, how will it be done and how will > success be > > measured. Goals do NOT have these elements! > > I would be much less inclined to reject outright prescriptive > pronouncements > like this if they were couched in some sort of context indicating in which > school or schools of thought these words ("objectives", "goals") have these > peculiar and limited meanings. > > The words have commonly understood usage that stray far beyond the > strictures of the above assertions. I expect I'm not alone in my > inclination to apply common usage. > > If one wants to make a case for working within a particular framework, then > by all means do, but assuming the framework and making declarations from > within it short-circuits a lot of the opportunity to build a common > understanding. > > It seems particularly incongruous within a constructionist organization to > make declarations like this. >
I just wanted to make clear that Sugar Labs community welcomes and encourages the exchange of ideas among all it's members but that doesn't mean we -as an organization- endorse those ideas. Caryl, That said, I do agree the "instructionist tone" and "working without a particular framework" are improper for our community of learners. I hope you can take the feedback as an opportunity for improvement. Regards and blessings, Laura V > > -- > D. Joe > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Laura V. * I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org* “Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.” ~ Laura Victoria Happy Learning! #LearningByDoing #Projects4good #IDesignATSugarLabs #WeCanDoBetter
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep