Sterngold wrote:
> 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>
Let's be clear here: I have not posted any image links since the suggestion
was made, I actually like the suggestion. I just brought up the fact that I
had posted links seemed to generate a lot of traffic. Also let's not forget
that a year ago I didn't even own a telescope, nor had I even been thinking
of buying one.
My point in the latter comment is to again point out that the group changes
with time, is continually evolving and and that is a GOOD thing. Furthermore
it is an indication of a group that is healthy: it is growing and evolving
and usually there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. So
even though you old-timers may have addressed some issue a year or even two
months ago, doesn't mean that the current readers of TAC were a part of that
discussion and agreed with the decision. People come and go all the time.
>
> 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.
>
I think there is a LOT of resistance to change by some of the visionaries
that made TAC happen originally. I understand that they had a particular
objective in mind when the framework was launched. But like anything that is
a sum of its parts, it will change as the parts change. I am not sure that
short of running a moderated list that there's anything that can be done
about it other than to have certain folks speak up loudly when they don't
like something that is going on. And even if that happens, it doesn't
necessarily guarantee any particular result because the composition of the
group changes and so does the group consensus. We see political attitudes
in this country change over time, why should TAC be any different?
> 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.
The discussion is healthy and is the feedback mechanism that effects or
squelches change. The fact that it occurs is evidence of a group that is
vigorous and alive and growing. Sure the traffic is different than it was
when the list started. I think the US is pretty different than it was when
it first started and I suspect the founders would have some issues with
certain policies that are commonly accepted today. It is good that the
vision of the creators of the list be brought out when things happen that
are different. It gives a chance to the newcomers to hear what has been
decided in the past and the list as a whole to reexamine those decisions.
Let's keep this in perspective: I believe this was about people (such as me)
posting links to images to the list. You have no way of knowing how many
email messages I received privately stating that the images were on-topic,
were appreciated, and to keep it up. For the life of me, I cannot understand
why someone that objects to them doesn't just skip those thing that they are
uninterested in? It is not like they aren't well marked by the header. Maybe
they were offended by them. If they were, then I think they must have some
other problem.
Comments about old values being overridden by a vocal minority remind me of
political dialogue of the '60s, Paul. Posting links to images should not be
a BIG deal. It is not like we have some cancer released upon society.
>
> 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.
Mark has been a lynchpin of this group. He's brought a lot of value to it.
If Mark wants to focus his energies in the area of an observer-only list,
I'm confident he'll do just that. I hate to see him leave, but as I said
people come and go all the time in lists and in life. Maybe Mark will be
able to keep his list pure; time will tell.
rdc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 08:57:38 MST