[MD] guidebook

[ian glendinning]

DMB,

I think I addressed most points in the responses to Ant and Rebecca, I
just wanted to re-inforce a response to one of your points.

I am absolutely not suggesting a new separate organisation. Nothing
could be further from the truth. In fact I'm trying to save this one
by firming up just one aspect of it's identity ... what it is and how
"its" view is expressed. (Whilst at the same time preserving its
existing living / dynamic components).

I see to many good people who have drifted away over the years because
it periodically takes on too "cultish" a flavour. I'm simply trying to
save us all from that, because it still includes some very good
people, old and new.

Regards
Ian

On 10/4/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ant said to Ian:
> It would be appreciated if you stuck to the particular issue in question
> rather than throw in your pet project at every opportunity.  The issue (as
> indicated by the subject line) was about Gav's idea of using MOQ Focus to
> construct a Guidebook to LILA.
>
> dmb says:
> I think Gav's idea is a good one. Its do-able without any hassle. We can use
> a tool that's just laying there neglected. And even if we can't quite manage
> to produce a great book, we'll end up with a good intro piece that can be
> "published" by the MOQers with web sites. Maybe a version of Rebecca's
> essay-to-a-friend idea could get things rolling there. Anyway, I'd chip in
> on such an effort.
>
> Ian's idea, on the other hand, make me kinda nervous. Everyone feels nervous
> if they "lose control"?
> The more motivated amongst us tend to the "control freak" end of the scale?
> I don't see how this is much of an issue because nobody's in charge. I mean,
> Horse can and will eject members who become too abusive or disruptive but
> that's just to keep this forum functioning as a free and open discussion.
> And it makes little sense to worry about controlling of the debate or
> controlling the discussion because its pretty much uncontrollable. And I
> don't think setting up a formal structure is a good way to try...
>
> Ian said:
> What I'm repeatedly proposing is that we should formalise the relationship
> between the group and those with editorial rights, so that no-one with
> legitimate interest feels excluded from the process.
>
> dmb says:
> Editorial rights? Legitimate interests? So "the group" has no editorial
> rights? Aren't you concerned about their feelings of exclusion? Do you
> consider yourself to have a legitimate interest and editorial rights? By
> editorial rights do you mean "control" of the interpretation? Yikes! Sorry,
> but it all looks a little too control freaky for me.
>
> But if you have some other idea, one where you don't create or run a new
> organization for the MOQers, let's hear it. I mean, Gav is organizing a
> project within the existing structures and nobody is excluded. That's the
> way to go because its so much easier and simpler, if nothing else.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
> route!  http://local.live.com
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>