Another clarification: Listserv is no more and no less secure than Egroups. Anyone -- just anyone -- with the necessary subscription instructions can subscribe to either. The subscription instructions are publicly available. Anyone -- just anyone -- who has subscribed, can access the archives which are available on the web in both forums. Both sets of archives are accessible via the web. There is no difference except for the additional features available on Egroups.
At this point, 24 (out of 162 on Egroups) have chosen to vote: 16 have been for the switch, and 8 against the switch. As someone remarked, the sample size is too small. And there is the issue of self-selection. 34 messages have been posted there at this point. OSLIST will be available at both places. Consider continuing to use LISTSERV for general discussions, and use the Chat, polling, links, database and calendaring features of Egroups as a supplement. Why not use both? Why not use all (including Harrison's and other suggestions)? Pretty soon, we will need to learn to use all these technologies -- otherwise we might be missing some powerful opportunities. Yes, OS does not require, and should not require technology. But heck, OSLIST would not exist if were not for technology and technology users. Aren't we already excluding all those OS practitioners who do not have access to technology, or are not aware of OSLIST yet? Don't you suppose there are more than 292 persons in the world interested in OS? OSLIST users, by defintion, are not technophobes, but actually find it useful. Perhaps it might be nice for us to be the torch-bearers, scouts, explorers, who bring back good tidings about the new lands of technology in OS. My 2 (plus 1) cents. Murli At 01:58 PM 6/28/00 -0700, you wrote:
I have been silent on this issue, since I am just catching up in reading past messages. I have no technological wisedom to contribute but Michelle's question (below) touched upon a cord. I feel the OSChatlist is a coummunity. There was something safe about exploring ideas and questions within a community of people that we know have some understanding of what we may be talking about...may sound pretty weird to many web browsers who have not a clue or little basic information. There is a vulnerability in thingking out loud, attaching your name to it and sending to an address that could be: "The world". In OS, participants usually have a general idea of who's there, and if they feel safe, that it's the right people, they open up their passion to the group, knowing that there might be "a few strangers" - but strangers will not form the majority of the group. Who's there on the egroup (web accessed) will no longer be answerable it seems. Like Michelle, I acknowledge that once something is on email, there is no garantee. That is already taken into consideration. But talking to a group you know has been following the conversation an talking to "G " knows who? makes for a different dialogue. I don't know how far we are down the path to a no return but I thought I would no longer be a silent whose consent is concluded to be implicit. Diane Gibeault Michelle Cooper wrote: Since this seems to be proceeding anyway, is it time to relook at the givens of this list, e-group, whatever? How are we opening and creating safe space in the new format? I realize that anything we put out here in writing is a risk and might be used by anyone in any way. There have been some deeply personal conversations and sharing on the list, which is part of the richness. Did we say up front conversations would be archived and posted to a web site? Would this have made a difference to people? Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="dgp.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Diane Gibeault Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dgp.vcf" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by listserv.boisestate.edu id KAA11923
