The following guidelines for participation in the WRA discussion area set out how we might best communicate in order to get the most out of participating.
The default arrangement is that messages are posted to the discussion area automatically. As such, new posts do not require any approval or permit any filtering or editing by the discussion manager (David Low). Although this default can be changed as a means of controlling the flow of conversation if necessary, this is not something the discussion manager wants to do. Rather, his preference is to maximise a sense of the communication being something occurring in an open forum, such as a symposium or conference.
Experience has shown -- in the case of environment-related discussion, at least -- that this open access policy achieves vastly superior results to what can be achieved by filtering or through editorial intervention. Thus, the discussion is "moderated" only in a minimal and unobtrusive way. The basic method of managerial control is the same sort as the control exercised by other forum members, namely, by participation in discussion as a forum member on par with others.
In the above sense, the discussion area has been structured as a place for scientific conversation. It is a place where people can and do critically question and challenge one another without the usual protections of office, rank, agenda, and official moderation. In respect to weed risk issues, the open forum format is intended to offer a safe environment in which to generate the necessary spontaneity and critical focus.
WHAT IS RELEVANT TO POST AND DISCUSS?
Since the WRA discussion area is best thought of as a public forum, people contribute (or not) as they think best. Participants can come and go freely, as is taken for granted in public forums wherever they occur. There is no standing agenda except the promotion of conversation of the sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in weed risk assessment. The working test for relevance would simply be a plausible explanation of why the topic in question should be under discussion in a forum dedicated to weed risk assessment.
CAVEAT ABOUT CORRECTING OTHERS
Participation is understood here to be essentially a critically directed, self-controlled conversation. But there is one important caveat in this connection: If you feel that some messages being posted are not to the purpose of the discussion area, or that there is something someone is doing which should be discouraged, do NOT attempt to rectify that yourself by posting a message to that effect to the forum. Because there is so little overt or formal moderation by the list manager, it is natural to suppose that an individual members can and should take that role as needed. But this rarely if ever produces the effect intended, regardless of how reasonable it may seem at a particular time.
Contact David Low off-list and we will see what can or should be done, if anything, without generating a chain reaction of protests and counter-protests, which are the typical result of attempting to rectify the problem on-line in the discussion area.
SHOULD EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS BE TAKEN OFF-THE BLOG?
In general, it is preferable for purposes of the forum itself to keep discussion about the topic in question public since off-blog discussions can result in a damaging loss of shared public understanding of what is being said. This is worth special mention because there are many blogs and discussion lists which encourage taking the conversation off-line as quickly as possible. The aim is to inhibit extended discussion on the blog in favour of the maximisation of some other value, often not clearly stated but policed nonetheless. Whatever the wisdom of this may be elsewhere, this is NOT encouraged here. People can of course pursue off-blog communication with one another as much as they please; but the point to bear in mind is that if the topic is under public discussion in the WRA forum, then the quality of that discussion can be seriously degraded if parts of it are not publicly accessible. Moreover, those who are "out of the loop" may feel -- and rightly -- that they are not being treated as peers in the discussion, even though that is not the intention.
PROBLEMS WITH THE SOFTWARE PLATFORM
Please inform the list manager when you think that something has happened to prevent you from participating. Usually the list manager will have no idea that you are having problems until someone informs him.
OBSERVERS ("LURKERS")
Observers as well as active participants will use this discussion area: the WRA discussion is a space that is structued to operate like a public forum. As such, there may be people who have access to the blog who never post. They nevertheless follow the conversations closely and avidly. Note, howeve, that non-participating members must still be invited and registered to particpate by the discussion area manager (David Low). Anonymous posting is not possible.
INTRODUCING TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
You should feel free to introduce a new topic for discussion, or to respond to a "thread" or line of thought already in process, or to participate only by observation, as you see fit. This type of communicational arrangement takes multiple "threads" of discourse for granted, which means that, except in special cases, you are not interrupting a conversation in process when you introduce a new topic. In fact, concurrent multi-thread conversation can result in the sort of gratuitous conceptual enrichment we prize as serendipity, and is to be encouraged. So don't wait for the right time to introduce a topic: just jump right in with it. Also, you should take it for granted that nobody "owns" a public discussion or publicly developed line of thought: you can enter into it at any time, just as those already involved in it can pay as much or as little attention as they see fit in view of the relevance of what you say, as they perceive it.
NEED FOR PATIENCE, TOLERANCE, OPTIMISM
If you are already acquainted with blog-based communication of this sort then you are aware that it is in some ways importantly unlike face-to-face group discussion, and the effective use of this medium requires the cultivation of attitudes appropriate to much looser patterns of communicational responsiveness and of a kind of patience and tolerance that may at first seem unnatural (especially on those occasions when you post something and no one seems interested in responding at all!).
If nobody responds to your posts you should NOT assume that it is because of lack of interest, or that your post is perceived as something negligible. You really have no basis for doing that, given the understandings and practices of discussion blogs like this. Frequently, the interested people just don't have time to respond, and few of us have time to respond to more than a small percentage of the things that interest us, in any case.
Since you usually have no way of knowing why you didn't get the response you hoped for, it is best to be Stoic about it. Pose your questions and comments well by your own standards and remind yourself that even if there is no overt response, what you have said or asked will be read by many people in any case, and with what results or "fruits" you cannot know. If overt response is really important to you, then wait a month or so and try it again.
NEW MEMBERS: INTRODUCING YOURSELF TO THE FORUM
Even if you have no substantive contribution to make--no question to raise, etc.--to the blog-group initially and perhaps plan only to observe, the other members would appreciate it if you were to introduce yourself briefly, saying anything you like about yourself that would give all of us some idea of what your special interests in the Green Office blog might be and what you might hope to gain from participation in the discussion, even if only as an observer. This can encourage others, who might only be waiting for a pretext to get into the topic that especially interests you. Do this whenever you want to do it. Don't wait for some especially appropriate time since there is none.
[Adapted from the Joseph Ransdell's guidlines to Arisbe]