Subash says: << Tom, the bottom line is that your perception of a possible conflict of interest does not really matter. If the naqt.com server is the easiest and most convenient site from which R. can run the qb mailing lists, then I have no problem with that, and I suspect that the majority (if not almost all) of the current list subscribers would be ok with it as well. Of course, my opinion here is not really important either, as this is simply an issue of choice. If you feel that the a new list at naqt.com presents a problem, than you and any like-minded people are always welcome to pursue your own avenues through which you can disseminate qb-related information (Yahoo, as you'd mentioned, being one). After all, no one is beholden to subscribe to the list. >> This encompasses two different arguments: 1) The first question is a question of convenience. Rob has more direct access and control over whatever happens to the NAQT server than he would if it were run elsewhere. It is easier theretofore to just establish mailing lists there. I suppose as a short-term temporary measure, that would be a reasonable solution. On the other hand, it's funny how short-term solutions tend to become permanent. 2) The argument that if I don't want to subscribe to _at_... lists, then I could just go ahead and start up my own. That is a good alternative, except for one thing... how many list servers are you willing to be part of? Most people will still tend to choose one over the other, and in all likelihood they'd choose Rob's _at_... email list because he has been pretty much the only person who has moderated this list over the last three years. I certainly don't have the time to moderate my own list, but even if I were, I'd have trouble trying to get people to join my email list since Rob's reputation as moderator would make people more prone to join his. Consequently, the argument that we could start our own is similar to "we could design our own web browser if we're not satisfied with IE." We've already pretty much developed our own standard regarding the emailing lists, and we are very comfortable with Rob being moderator. Again, that's not the issue. The ease of having it be run through the NAQT server is not the issue. The issue is whether this arrangement will result in an appearance of conflict of interest in that it would appear that NAQT has a major influence over the qb circuits than if R were to run the listservers through a different domain. I suppose an alternative is to have someone create a qb_at_... or a qb_at_... or a qb_at_... . But just as we have already chosen to prefer Yahoo!'s club over the egroups club, so it will also come to pass for any "competition" to the proposed qb_at_... site. And thus, what could be implied with that group decision? Sure, it can be argued that R does this voluntarily, but they have the power of written publication to whatever mailing lists they have to other colleges or high school programs. And to that extent, they have a clear advantage in outreach than any other "competing" listserver group would have. Besides, to retort your argument that it is not necessary to subscribe to the new list to get information on tournaments, I agree: the original question I had of, "why not just keep using the Yahoo Clubs message board"? For that solution, I will agree with Shawn there are questions regarding access and server reliability... but these are the same problems that any network administrator will have anyway. Why can't we continue to use this message board to promote tournaments and organizations?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST