[IAEP] mailing list usage & business jargon, was Re: Back on Task... The 2017 Sugar Labs Mission Statement

[Laura Vargas]

2017-04-28 16:06 GMT-05:00 D. Joe <sugarlabs at etrumeus.com>:

> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0000, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
>
> > Second... when you reply to an email, unless it is private SLOB business,
> > please be sure you have included iaep in the addresses.
>
> I would say: Include IAEP if it's IAEP business (and yes, so long as its
> IAEP business suitable for public consumption). We've seen a *lot* of
> crossposting recently between IAEP and sugar-devel that probably wasn't
> necessary, and raises the noise floor on both sides. It's always possible
> to
> forward something later, it's effectively impossible to unsend something
> (the growing pile of ineffective "recall" messages I've accumulated
> over the years notwithstanding).
>
> > Otherwise your messages look blank to everyone who isn't a SLOB member.
>
> I have no idea what this means. If you're not on the list of direct
> recipients (via any of the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: headers), and you're not a
> recipient via your subscriptions to one or more of the targetted mailing
> lists, you should see nothing at all.
>
> Seeing a "blank" message sounds like an error at some point in the mail
> delivery or display functions and less a question of addressing.
>
> You should either get the message, in full, or not at all.
>
> > Please understand, goals are NOT the same as objectives. They are much
> more
> > general. Objectives are designed to help achieve the goals and have a
> definite
> > form... who will do what by when, how will it be done and how will
> success be
> > measured. Goals do NOT have these elements!
>
> I would be much less inclined to reject outright prescriptive
> pronouncements
> like this if they were couched in some sort of context indicating in which
> school or schools of thought these words ("objectives", "goals") have these
> peculiar and limited meanings.
>
> The words have commonly understood usage that stray far beyond the
> strictures of the above assertions. I expect I'm not alone in my
> inclination to apply common usage.
>
> If one wants to make a case for working within a particular framework, then
> by all means do, but assuming the framework and making declarations from
> within it short-circuits a lot of the opportunity to build a common
> understanding.
>
> It seems particularly incongruous within a constructionist organization to
> make declarations like this.
>


I just wanted to make clear that Sugar Labs community welcomes and
encourages the exchange of ideas among all it's members but that doesn't
mean we -as an organization- endorse those ideas.

Caryl,

That said, I do agree the "instructionist tone"  and "working without a
particular framework" are improper for our community of learners.

I hope you can take the feedback as an opportunity for improvement.


Regards and blessings,
Laura V


>
> --
> D. Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep




-- 
Laura V.
* I&D SomosAZUCAR.Org*

“Solo la tecnología libre nos hará libres.”
~ Laura Victoria

Happy Learning!
#LearningByDoing
#Projects4good
#IDesignATSugarLabs
#WeCanDoBetter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20170504/2f239732/attachment-0001.html>