We will meet again on Friday, May 8, from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m.Nobody asked if I could participate on that date. Is anybody taking steps to accommodate my participation from out of town? I was never contacted. Please explain why not. Couldn't anybody send emails during the meeting, to let me know what was happening? What about chat? What about skype? What about streaming live on a secure URL so I could at least email responses?
It was noted that while any individual can set up a yahoo group, for example, to discuss KUNM matters, Richard Towne wants KUNM-sponsored discussion restricted to internally managed services.
This doesn't mean anything to me. Please explain.
I believe that there was a sentiment against limiting the number of posts each day, and to evaluate on a case by case basis
HERE IT IS: "Case by case!!" No policy, just double standard. Are we ever going to explain to people what we consider "acceptable," or will we continue contemptuous silence to "offenders," hoping they'll be punished?
(it was noted that if there is a dialogue that relates to KUNM community, it might result in multiple short-term postings.)
There may be other news of importance to KUNM, too, that arrives more than once per day.
Subject headers were discussed, including the option of participants creating new headers, as needed, perhaps relating back to a broader theme, such as MUSIC, MUSIC/NEWS, MUSIC/OBIT, etc.
We discussed the possibility of recruiting a qualified volunteer (once guidelines were in place) to help with managing the Ideas List (there is precedent for this – the list was initiated by a volunteer in collaboration with a staff member.)
What does "managing" mean?
I noted that I can place individuals on moderation for Ideas List posting without affecting the majority of participants at all, and release individuals from moderation where applicable.
What "place individuals on moderation" mean? Is this some sort of punishment or restriction? For what offenses? Was any of that clarified? "Release?????????????????????????"
We discussed publicizing whether ticket giveaways or other freebies should be offered only through the Ideas List (in order to encourage participation. Response to this idea was positive.)
I thought the problem was too much participation, already. Does this mean more people ON the Ideas List, but still discouraging posting?
For discussion (I’m just mentioning it here): Should the Ideas List be mandatory for KUNM volunteers and staff? (If so, posting would presumably be more closely monitored.)
If it had a website, like AIR and Transom do, people could check it without receiving email. Ops bulletins go out to everybody.
After the meeting of May 8, we hope to have a post/summary ready for sharing on the Ideas List, asking for feedback from the full list before fine-tuning.
How does this solve the content squabbles? Did everybody agree to something not mentioned here? Are we following Katie's demands: no job postings, no info from other aspects of community radio, nothing that's not narrowcasted to special interests, no matter who else might want to know? Unless it's about a yuppie vacation to Hawaii and visiting the station there. I see nothing resolved here: people we don't like will be "handled" on a case-by-case basis, but nobody knows what the rules are, still. This seems very unfair. What are the RULES???
Once we have a working set of guidelines, Richard Towne will review before it is published on the Ideas List (for new participants and periodically, as needed.)
Again, if we used a format with an actual website, like AIR, we could post guidelines there. In fact, when I joined AIR, I asked for a copy of the guidelines. They decided to post them on the web site; they hadn't been there before. It made for some joking and silliness among old time posters.
By the way, I recently joined AIR and their email list. It is a friendly and helpful place, accepting and generous. So are the forums at Transom, which is how I began correspondence with several producers for APM, NPR and Jay Allison, himself. People in both places are genuinely happy I'm there and enthusiastic about my postings. They appreciate my offers to volunteer, rather than ignoring them. It's been a blessing to get out of the small town and back to the big city online. Too bad KUNM is so brittle and rigid in its approach to every aspect of herding volunteers and monitoring correct speech.
Whom does this committe represent? It's not the users of the list.
I thought the decisions of this committee were to be trusted by the whole community -- which we can't represent honestly, because we're not allowed to ask them what they want. Seems very undemocratic to me. If Richard Towne gets final approval, if we represent nothing like the volunteers and staff who use the ideas list, why is this committee doing this work? Why isn't Richard Towne? Is the committee just reinforcing the unclear guidelines and double standards already in place (with the addition of complicated and long subject headings) so Richard Towne can blame any flak on us?
Whoa.
No comments:
Post a Comment