Just a quick note, stimulated by Carl Dassbach's message:
I agree with Carl and others that PEWS needs to be more open and
democratic and think that WSN potentially offers an opportunity to move
things in that direction. BUT, I think that his first point is CRITICAL.
Those of us who are plugged into the Internet, and more specifically,
WSN, find it an indispensible way to communicate. Most of us would
have trouble living without our familiar routine of logging in and
checking our mail several times a day. But, we need to remember it IS a
relatively new technology. I am not at all certain that ALL PEWS members
are in the position (or, for that matter, have the disposition) to have
access to the network. Perhaps the answer is fervent evangelism toward
these folks to convert them to the online way of life we've adopted.
However, there may be some folks who simply don't want to subscribe, but
are still interested in participating in the section. At any rate, my
real point is this: we don't want to replace what some people see as a
interpersonal cabal of PEWS insiders with an electronic network clique that
also may exclude certain people and points of view. We need to be
intentionally inclusive to the greatest extent possible.
Having said all this, I want to be clear: I agree with Carl, Fred, and
others that WSN can and should be a forum for the sorts of discussions
that they are advocating. I hope that it can provide us with a place
where we can have a serious, thoughtful debate about the more
fundamental issues that Al Bergesen raised in his posting, too. I
just want to remind everybody whose on WSN that we probably don't
represent all of the PEWS section...
dave smith
pews council member