<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Hi Christian,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 November 2014 04:33, Christian de Larrinaga <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cdel@firsthand.net" target="_blank">cdel@firsthand.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-family:Optima;font-size:12pt" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Optima"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Optima"><span style="font-family:Optima">Am I alone in finding the
new ISOC "Connected discussion" is limiting use to broadcast
announcements? </span> I find them unsuited for discussions precisely
because the context and position of any message within a thread is lost.
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">It's a typical online "post + comments" system, quite common, It indeed does not thread well, and is more suited as a broadcast and document-store system.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">But that's OK. Not every tool has to serve everyone.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Is ISOC Connect the best tool for the job? Probably not. However, I would rather have an imperfect tool now rather than spend years with nothing while searching for perfection. In my better world, Chapters would have been a greater part of the selection process. That's a function the CAC (aha! relevance to the Subject:) will certainly help with going forward.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">What I am finding, that in the 20-odd years since RFC 1855 was written, the Internet has expanded so rapidly, and gone globally mainstream to the point that NO single tool or methodology will work for everyone. So the tools and styles of communications used by people now vary wildly.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">That's why I created the ISOC Skype chat. I'm quite sure that many would never go near it, but the 50+ people who have joined seem to find it useful.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Same for the ISOC Chapters Facebook page. Ditto @ISOC on Twitter. And similarly, same for the ISOC Connect platform, which as of a few minutes ago had 732 subscribers to the Chapter Leadership community. Not everyone has to love it, but enough find it sufficiently useful to be there.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">As for conduct in messages such as top-posting; styles vary. What works for some may not work for others. Some people like top posting so they can summarize a set of comments into a cogent paragraph that can't be framed easily in a point-by-point refutation. Some people like point by point.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Such diversity is inevitable given the growth of the Internet; efforts to revert back to the good old days of an elitist geek clique are ill-advised and futile.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">IMO it is illogical, rude, and arguably imperialistic to impose modes of communications on others. Human interaction cannot, and should not, be regulated the way Internet protocols are, This is indicated by the author of RFC 1855 wisely noting in its <b>second sentence</b> that "<i>This memo </i><i>does not specify an Internet standard of any kind</i>". I believe that should be taken to heart.</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Indeed, much of what is in RFC 1855, to me, is mere common sense that could apply to verbal, written, video (etc) communications as much as text-on-a-screen. While it could not anticipate the evolution (for instance) of wildly popular tools with 140 character message limits, it contains some nice "rules of thumb" that could be easily summarized as</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><i>"Don't be a jerk"</i></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">To that I would add one other comment verbatim from the RFC, one that should be a part of every discourse on communications, and IMO should guide people before they start wasting bandwidth scolding others:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default"><i>"Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive."</i></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Yes, it's a pain that I need to use multiple different tools -- and multiple different styles of writing -- to get a message across, depending on the intended audience. But years ago I stopped denying the fact that most of my kids' generation doesn't use email at all (so issues such as "top-posting versus inline" are irrelevant to them). If I want to reach an audience -- or an individual -- I have to consider how they communicate. Likewise, if I post an ISOC-related message on Facebook I know there are many subscribed to this list that will never see it. But many others will. And anyone doing Chapter outreach and membership development needs to be aware of how to communicate with potential new members who may have cultural (or generational) differences in how they converse. Advocacy of the open Internet is everyone's cause -- IMO it cannot be restricted to those who know what an RFC is (let alone strictly adhere to RFC1855). We have an educational role to play, but let's not make this a barrier to entry.</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">The Internet is growing, and as a result getting more diverse with each passing day. One tool does not fit all. One style of writing does not fit all. If you don't like the style or medium of a particular kind of communications, you always have the option -- the power -- to ignore it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">- Evan</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div></div>
</div></div>