[Chapter-delegates] [Chaptersadvisorycounciltaskforce] Chapters Advisory Council

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Christian,

On 14 November 2014 04:33, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:

> Am I alone in finding the new ISOC "Connected discussion"  is limiting use
> to broadcast announcements?  I find them unsuited for discussions
> precisely because the context and position of any message within a thread
> is lost.
>

​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.

But that's OK. Not every tool has to serve everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 *second sentence* that "*This memo  **does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind*". I believe that should be
taken to heart.

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

*"Don't be a jerk"*


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:

*"Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive."*


​​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.

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.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20141114/b053c3c9/attachment.htm>