As I browsed the new discussion board I got excited at how conversations will
have new possibilities and at how the range of topics invites us all to stay
focused on AML's key concerns. We all know how broadly conversations have
roamed--not that they shouldn't, at times, but I think the various topics as now
established on the discussion board have the chance of drawing in new people and
better fulfilling AML's core mission. Email lists are familiar, but it tends to
be difficult to sustain more than one conversation on a list at a time. I'm
excited to start some new conversations with this new format, and to continue
more productively some others.
Anyway, I also share concerns about membership being a requirement to post on
the boards. However, I suggest a compromise (which I don't know is technically
feasible). What if there were an open forum for non-AML members (not broken out
into so many conversation threads) as a complement to the main discussion
boards? Just an idea. And of course, if the more closed system starts to falter
it can always be opened up.
Another alternative would be to charge a nominal one-time fee just for
participating on the boards (and not getting full AML membership benefits). If
someone had to pay $5 it might not be too inhibiting. I do think that having
some threshold to cross to show your commitment (even a nominal $5) can have its
benefits. But I leave these matters up to the board. AML has always been very
good about listening to its members; we wouldn't want to risk excluding good
critics like Jonathan Langford!
Couldn't the old AML-list stay up for a month or two as bugs get worked out on
the discussion board?
Gideon
