>perhaps, but it's not an attainable goal, since we already have examples of
>people forwarding on portions of email exchanges and having them be
>misconstrued.
I think it is attainable. We reduce opportunity for people to do it
accidently
and we remove those who deliberately break the rules.
This helps everybody. Where is the encouragement for quality PAB folk
to participate if they know somebody is lurking ready to copy extracts to
the general public to suit their own ends?
>>A web based conference tool which required registration and login to
>>participate would help lots in my view.
>
>Such tools require considerable extra effort by the participant and,
>therefore, ensures lower participation. (I can go into the human factors
>details, since this is a matter which I've considered for roughly 25 years,
>but I'll keep it to the summary conclusion unless asked to do otherwise.)
Our experience is that:-
1) Non-technical people (majority) prefer it
2) Views expressed are usually better considered
3) Less knee jerk responses
4) Much easier to contribute to multiple threads
5) May even help consensus development
If you think extra effort is the logging in and out bit, and actually
reading
the thread before making a considered reply; then yes, lets exclude
those who see this as a barrier.
Participation requires a commitment to considering the views of others
not just whipping ideas back and forth with an e-mail client when
something pops onto your desk and interrupts your day.
Regards,
Peter Mott
Chief Enthusiast
2Day Internet Ltd
-/-