<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>I've changed the subject line, to focus on the specific question of GSBNs future structure. I'm finding it challenging to follow this topic mixed in with other questions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I favor continuing GSBN as it is. I think it serves a valuable and unique niche. Our members have differing needs, and GSBN serves some of those needs well. In my view, we have created an important community on GSBN, that I want to maintain. The fact
that the list is quiet for weeks at a time is a virtue. It allows important mutual support and high-level discussion on topics when needed, and isn't a burden during the rest of the time. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Facebook serves other needs and other forms of use. The Strawbale list on Facebook has existed for I don't know how long- more than a year. It has more than 1,100 members. Some members of GSBN are on the Facebook SB list, and everyone could be, if they
wanted to be. But closing GSBN would not enhance the Facebook group, it would just eliminate the unique community that we have here. You can't have this kind of community and interaction on a list with Facebook's level of traffic, member quantity, and mix
of topics and postings. Facebook is great for reaching a lot of people in a fairly superficial way. That is important, but it isn't the only thing that is important. GSBN is important too. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Derek</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Bill Christensen wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 2/27/14 8:10 PM, Frank Tettemer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Tony, that was a wake up for me. I hadn't even considered Liz might not be on the list. And so I began to consider who else might not be on the list.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">In an effort to leave no stones unturned, I would like to nominate the following:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Dawn Marie Smith<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Anna Wolfson<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Michael Henry<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Emily Rydell Niehaus<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">I'd also like to apologize to any of the people, nominated above, who are reading this right now,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">because, they are already on this list!<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">I just didn't know.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
Dawn and Emily are already here.<br>
<br>
Anna, Michael, and Liz Johndrow are not yet (or they're unidentified non-contributors at the moment).<br>
<br>
I'll need their email addresses or better still they can sign up by following the link at the bottom of
<a href="http://sustainablesources.com/GSBN/">http://sustainablesources.com/GSBN/</a>, and then let me now and I can make them contributing members.<br>
<br>
Regarding the idea of combining lists: I definitely support putting the bioenergy and SBRUs lists together. It seems they've been redundant since shortly after the REPP list cratered for a while, SBRUs was created, and then REPP was reconstituted.<br>
<br>
The original reason for GSBN's existence was that those lists were bale-hammered on a regular basis by well meaning newbies. Us old codgers (experience-wise, not necessarily chronologically) got tired of repeating the same answers again and again, and a bunch
of the really knowledgeable old codgers got too busy working on codes and other big-picture stuff to wade into the fray often, if at all. GSBN became the place for 'higher level' discussions regarding the strawbale movement, techniques, etc. And it has proven
to work very well for that over the many years (since 1998 at least).<br>
<br>
If y'all are of a mind to open GSBN to everyone (and I know some of you have been for a fair while), or to combine it with some new SB überlist I'm cool with that too. Opening to all just involves a couple clicks of my all-powerful mouse. Combining lists
can be a little more difficult (archive transfers and all that) but is not impossible.<br>
<br>
But I'd want to hear a decisive decision one way or the other from the majority of you.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GSBN mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GSBN@sustainablesources.com">GSBN@sustainablesources.com</a><br>
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Derek
Roff<br>
<a href="mailto:derek@unm.edu">derek@unm.edu</a><br>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>
</body>
</html>