>Please give an example from our recent past messages
>of "candid" remarks.
Pointing out one example singles out an individual and doesn't provide
enough guidance for future postings. Instead, let me share the guidelines
I've always followed when posting to any public list:
1) Would you be comfortable if your mother, spouse, kids, anyone mentioned
in your post, etc were to read what you wrote?
2) Would you be comfortable if your comments, taken out of context, were to
appear in court?
3) Remember that your postings can be read tomorrow, next week, next year,
etc.
Different people have different comfort levels. My level may not be the same
as yours. However, I assume everyone on TAC is a responsible, clear-thinking
adult. I would expect that if everyone used those filters, just about all
postings would have acceptable content. I think problems arise when
individuals momentarily forget that they are posting to a public list rather
than to a private one.
>How can an unofficial group have an official liaison? Please, Lucy...
'splain it to me...
>.. does this sound "clubby" to you? ;-)
I understand and appreciate the loose "structure" of TAC. Certainly we don't
collect dues or elect officers. I wouldn't want to change any of that.
However, we already have and have always had the trappings of a "club". We
have a very well organized web-site. Clearly Mark W.tacitly has been the
President of the club. You look at the bottom of the TAC website and you see
a number of people with official titles like "mailing list admin", "web-site
admin", etc.
I don't know why some on the list find being associated with a club to be
distasteful. There are benefits of being a club and we already take
advantage of that standing. We present ourselves as a club to the
Astronomical League and vendors of astronomy magazines. We have official
liaisons for both and display them on our webpage.
We also represent ourselves as a club when dealing with many of our
observing sites: MB, Dino, Lassen, etc. This is a good thing. It gives
individuals credibility when dealing with other organizations. Rather than
denying we are a club, we should embrace our distinctive club style and take
advantage of the strength our collective numbers and talent give us.
On "Official" liaisons.
I don't believe in structure for structure's sake. We already have plenty of
liaisons: Mark W. for Lassen, LSA, James T. for MB, etc. This doesn't
preclude someone else from contacting those organizations. There are a
number of reasons why an "official" TAC liaison is a good idea.
1) unless you can point to an individual who is responsible for a task, it
isn't likely to get done.
2) everyone on the list knows where to go for information
3) one person collecting the information assures that important information
isn't held by different individuals
4) we don't confuse the organizations or burden them by speaking to a lot
individuals
5) the organizations know who to contact
Clearly there are a lot of people on TAC who observe at FP and have put in a
lot of effort to provide access and improve its conditions. All their
efforts should be applauded. I'm sure when they speak/have spoken to the
officials there, they haven't done so for their personal benefit. They have
done it for their fellow TAC members. Making someone the liaison, like
Peter, doesn't exclude anyone else from continuing their good work.
Maintaining and improving the conditions of our sites doesn't happen by
itself. It takes work and it is good to share the load.
Albert