cherry at frodo.mgh.harvard.edu (Mike Cherry) writes:
: [...]
: I also agree that initially applying too much structure may stifle the
: nascent group. One of the main aspects of the proposed bionet.plants
: groups is to attract Plant <whatever> researcher to join and enjoy the
: discussions taking place on usenet. When the group is functioning and over
I think this is a very important point. We are trying to get plant
whatever's to _participate_ in the discussions which is what USENET is
all about, not just to read a new mailing list.
: worked is the time to create the subgroups. I believe most scientist do
: not understand what usenet can do for them. I don't completely understand
: why there is a hesitation by most people to start a new thread. Having a
: general group with a moderate amount of traffic appears to give people the
: idea they are not just shooting in a quite room.
I've received *lots* of e-mail about bionet.plants, but many people
seem to hestitate about posting their opinions here for all to see ;-)
E-mail and news are notorious for propagating misunderstandings and
misinterpretations of what people _intended_ to say. The public
criticism that is sometimes directed at people who try to start new
discussions can be a little intimidating and I can see why many people
are put off.
I also think that many scientists do not understand what Usenet can do
for them but the vast majority know it can do *something* and want to get
involved. The feedback from other people's responses is vital and it is
our responsiblilty to ensure that plant biologists are aware that this
forum exists.
Tony
--
Tony Travis <ajt at uk.ac.sari.rri> | Dr. A.J.Travis
| Rowett Research Institute,
| Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen,
| AB2 9SB. UK. tel 0224-712751
