[Free-sklyarov-uk] Advice and Help

[Jim Peters]

Edward Welbourne wrote:
> use of `group reply', threaded mailers, etc. are all very well - and
> much can be said in their favour generally - but none of it helps at
> all with the synchronisation problem ...

Okay, but as you say, there isn't much of a problem with multiple
replies.

> Meanwhile, why do we want a press at cdr e-mail address anyway ?

Well, I think we could still have some kind of means for members of
the press to get in touch, even if it *is* chaotic (and clearly
described as such -- i.e. "Your message will be sent to a number of
CDR members, any of which might reply").

Alternatively, we could say "stuff you and your hopes of turning this
story around by Wednesday -- make the commitment to join our mailing
list for a week or two if you really want to hear what we think".

> The press want a unified voice, so send them to FIPR.

Yes, okay, we provide two links: one to FIPR, the other to a bunch of
unpredictable CDR volunteers.

> Or let them contact us as individuals ... which is what we are.

That is an option, but I also quite like the idea of other people
adding to things that one person might say.  For Toby's article, we
came up with a lot of interesting stuff, and it was interesting to
read what other people had to say on the matter.  Also, if we can see
what other people are writing, this makes it all more transparent, and
keeps us all up-to-date on what's going on.

> > (the new leaderless model for this group)
> which, by the way, I keep expounding: but see no discussion thereon.

Well, I've been agreeing with you, but since all I would be able to
manage was a "ME TOO" posting, I hoped that not disagreeing was
enough.

> For a model to pertain to the group - i.e. for a decision to be
> taken on how much organisation `we' (TINW) want - requires more than
> just one lunatic proposing an anarchic position ... albeit a
> deafening enough silence will end up being interpreted as assent
> ... so is leaderless good in other eyes ?  

I say, let's be leaderless until someone else emerges who really suits
that role.  In fact, we might have many mini-leaders, people leading
on things they care about for a while, and then returning back to
non-leader status.  We not saying: "No leaders forever, policy
decision", are we ?

> Are you entirely certain I'm not a lurker-for-Sony doing my best to
> ensure the CDR stays too disorganised to be effective ?

No way -- lurkers don't post.

Jim

-- 
 Jim Peters                  (_)/=\~/_(_)                        Uazú
                          (_)  /=\  ~/_  (_)
 jim@                  (_)    /=\    ~/_    (_)                  www.
 uazu.net           (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_)           uazu.net