Jim and the list,
A timely posting - a variation on Tuckman's
"forming-storming-norming-performing" thoughts on group dynamics.
http://tinyurl.com/2k7x6d
The list did well. We got over our eruption of Sarah Palin postings in
half a day and promptly returned to our legal esoterica right after
lunch time.
Michael Dodson
Jim Milles wrote:
> Now might be as good a time as any to post this classic from the dawn of
> the Internet:
>
> *Originally Posted to Gleason Sackman's Net-Happenings
> <http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/scout/net-hap/index.html>*
>
> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 07:07:16 -0600
> From: Mike Gurstein <mikeg@nywork2.undp.org
> <mailto:mikeg@nywork2.undp.org>>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <futurework@csf.colorado.edu
> <mailto:futurework@csf.colorado.edu>>
> Subject: Fwd: Life cycle of Lists (fwd)
> ---------------------
> Forwarded message:
> From: mforster@findhorn.org <mailto:mforster@findhorn.org> (Michael
> Forster)
> To: communitarians@civic.net <mailto:communitarians@civic.net>
> Date: 95-03-31 07:57:23 EST
>
> This seemed like a good time to post this item from the Humor List.
> Michael Forster
>
> THE NATURAL LIFE CYCLE OF MAILING LISTS
>
> Every list seems to go through the same cycle:
>
> 1. Initial enthusiasm (people introduce themselves, and gush a lot
> about how wonderful it is to find kindred souls).
>
> 2. Evangelism (people moan about how few folks are posting to the
> list, and brainstorm recruitment strategies).
>
> 3. Growth (more and more people join, more and more lengthy threads
> develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up)
>
> 4. Community (lots of threads, some more relevant than others; lots
> of information and advice is exchanged; experts help other
> experts as well as less experienced colleagues; friendships develop;
> people tease each other; newcomers are welcomed with
> generosity and patience; everyone---newbie and expert alike---feels
> comfortable asking questions, suggesting answers, and
> sharing opinions)
>
> 5. Discomfort with diversity (the number of messages increases
> dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every
> reader; people start complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio;
> person 1 threatens to quit if *other* people don't
> limit discussion to person 1's pet topic; person 2 agrees with
> person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten up; more
> bandwidth is wasted complaining about off-topic threads than is used
> for the threads themselves; everyone gets
> annoyed)
>
> 6a. Smug complacency and stagnation (the purists flame everyone who
> asks an 'old' question or responds with humor to a serious post;
> newbies are rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a
> few minor issues; all interesting discussions happen by private
> email and are limited to a few participants; the purists spend lots
> of time self-righteously congratulating
> each other on keeping off-topic threads off the list)
>
> OR
>
> 6b. Maturity (a few people quit in a huff; the rest of the
> participants stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly
> every few weeks; many people wear out their second or third 'delete'
> key, but the list lives contentedly ever after)
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Milles
> Vice Dean for Legal Information Services and Director of the Law Library
> Professor of Law
> University at Buffalo Law School
> 208 O'Brian Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> (716) 645-2089, jgmilles@buffalo.edu <mailto:jgmilles@buffalo.edu>
> http://ClaimID.com/jmilles
> http://www.retaggr.com/Card/jmilles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 05 2008 - 13:57:41 PDT