--- Richard Crisp <rdcrisp@No-Spam> wrote:
> I guess that is what happened to TAC-imaging, because there are very few
> posts there about much of anything, which is the main reason I find
> TAC-imaging a non-starter (sorry Paul, it just doesn't seem to have
> critical mass or traction).
I was not going to join this thread, but my name has been dragged into it so
I believe a response is in order.
1) Please don't apologize to me, Richard. TAC-Imaging is not my list. My ego
is not on the line regarding it.
2) The issue of image postings had been discussed here on TAC a year or so
earlier, and a consensus reached. I had hoped to avoid a full-scale
replication of that earlier lengthy discussion. The intent was to avoid the
creation of a large volume of traffic, either in image postings or in a
discussion of image postings. That objective was not met. <g>
3) I also thought a rational solution had been proposed that would support
weekly image postings and hopefully keep the "me-too" volume down. I was
surprised that the discussion took on a life of its own after that solution
had been proposed. It brings to mind the humorous possibility of creating a
list specifically for the discussion of image-postings on TAC. <g>
4) One man's non-starter group qualifies as another man's critical mass and
traction. If TAC-Imaging doesn't meet your needs, I would suspect that there
are other imaging lists that would meet your criteria of critical mass and
traction, such as the SBIG group and Ron Wodaski's CCD Imaging group. I
participate in those other groups, too, as do several other TAC-Imaging
members. Would the proposed support for weekly image postings here on TAC,
with a request for no "gosh how pretty" replies, combined with more in-depth
image discussion on TAC-Imaging (or one of these larger groups), meet your
needs?
I don't think any of the TAC-Imaging members want it to be like those other,
larger groups, nor do they plan on departing the list due to low volume. I
appreciate the intimacy as well as the broad range of skill levels.
5) Is resistance to change the issue? There are different kinds of change. I
think the foundation of TAC has been a group of astronomers who shared a
framework of values focused on visual observing, a framework loose enough to
tolerate and even encourage loads of disagreement, dissent and disputes.
Whenever these fundamental values were tested, it seemed a raucous discussion
followed, but the group always seemed to right itself in relation to these
values.
This current discussion may be similar and the group may return to "normal",
but it certainly is possible that those fundamental values are no longer
shared by the majority and are in the process of change. Or perhaps the old
values are in danger of being over-ridden by an outspoken minority.
Mark Wagner has been a good friend for many years, and a strong voice and
hard worker for those values. I would hate to see him depart. In my mind, it
would indicate a "sea change" of values.
Cheers,
Paul Sterngold
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 00:10:07 MST