LAWS@IU.AI.SRI.COM (Ken Laws) (07/09/87)
[Excerpt from a message to Steven Harnad.] A problem with large, permanent lists is that they are primarily for those on the fringes of a field who want to monitor or join what is happening further in -- but not so far in that it becomes a full-time occupation or involves incomprehensible jargon. The professionals already have channels of communication among themselves (including personal visits, seminars, conferences, publications, and even e-mail or phone calls) and have little time for list discussions that are outside their own exceedingly narrow specialties. As to the suggestion of continuing via e-mail, it's not really so bad. Two options exist. One is to cc everyone on each message, letting the mailer propagate the cc list from one message to another. It is usually easy to add new members to such a discussion, but impossible to drop old ones without retyping the whole list. There is also a problem that BITNET gateways don't add necessary routing information to message that are handed over to the Arpanet. The other option is for one person to maintain a file with all the addresses, headed by a "label:" to suppress the information in the cc field of each message. All traffic is sent to this one individual, who then remails it to the distribution. That's a moderated list. (Anyone can get in this business!) One of the charges in your Nay summary was that discussion of other topics has been down since the fundamentals discussion took over. I believe that's true, although there seems no rational reason for it. Even queries and replies have been reduced, although that could be a coincidence due to the end of the school year and of the proposal year. A few people have dropped off the list because of the volume, many more have added themselves because AIList was beginning to border on their interests. The effects are complex, and certainly not just a linear addition of your text to whatever would have been present anyway. I believe that the proper model of a discussion list is the town meeting. AIList began with my own announcement of myself as moderator, or chairman/speaker of the house. A group of interested individuals formed, and through custom and convention we have worked out an informal social contract that governs the proceedings. Part of the contract is that participants pay reasonable attention to the proceedings, if only to avoid redundant or naive remarks. This, together with the serial nature of current message streams, implies that only one person (more or less ...) has the floor. Part of my job as moderator is to insure a balanced discussion, soliciting (or forwarding) new topics and viewpoints. Not every list is run as a town meeting, but that's my view of AIList. The symbol grounding discussion was carried out with great respect for the participants and with incredible attention to detail. AI needs to grapple with the problems you raised. (Whether AIList needs to is debated in your vote summaries.) The difficulty is simply that people can't pay attention to everything, and your discussion was demanding more attention than they could spare. The other rings of the circus require equal time. Incidentally, much of the personal criticism has been sparked by the one-against-all nature of your discussion. If the level of discussion had been more approachable, we might have had more people joining your cause and providing examples for your position. That would have been more interesting, and might have reached an obvious conclusion or stalemate sooner. It is a common characteristic of net debates, however, that nothing is ever settled. Points that are agreed to are simply dropped, with little or no mention that agreement has been reached, and may even be picked up by some other participant. Net discussions generate a continuous stream of ideas, but conclusions are lacking. I thank you for repeatedly reminding us that conclusions have not been reached in this particular topic area, and hope you will continue to contribute to AIList. -- Ken -------