[GSBN] GSBN's future structure

Fri Feb 28 20:48:53 UTC 2014

Agree about the repository idea.

Because of the calibre of contributions, there is invaluable information available on all topics - but it is not easy to find/access. 

Keep the email list functioning as is, but maybe archive the information in an easier-to-retrieve fashion. 

I'm not techie so I don't know how hard that would be. Also, I know that topics tend to diverge and expand from the original post - so logical archiving may not always be that straightforward.

Cheers

Feile
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Van Krieken 
  To: Global Straw Building Network 
  Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [GSBN] GSBN's future structure

  I totally agree with Derek. This GSBN format is unique also because of the information quality, expected in each discussion. 

  Facebook business it's based on the quantity of discussions and number of "users", good to spread quick messages. The combination between both is a good way to help spread the technical content published in GSBN, but that is all.

  Both realities are important, of course, but they are diferent.

  Please keep GSBN like it is. If I may give a sugestion, the GSBN repository it is very important and should be organized in a simple but eficient structure ( multi-categories), with a search engine to help find the information. Sometime ago I was looking for information concerning "foundations" and I had to use a software to "grab" all info from GSBN and then make a search. Its a lot of work... I guess this repository could be part of Bruce's portal?

  All the best

  Jorge Van Krieken
  Portugal

  On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:44 PM, André de Bouter <forum at lamaisonenpaille.com> wrote:

    I too really appreciate the GSBN crowd and its format as it is.
    I've tried facebook, to see what it is, but am not much inclined to increase my use of it (allready to complicated for me ;-) and I don't like it's policy much.

    Cheers,
    André

    Le 28/02/2014 19:17, Bruce EBNet a écrit :

      Yup, I also agree completely with Derek.  Let Facebook groups do what they do best -- act as successors to the first straw bale lists serves that were forever boiling with newbies -- and let GSBN remain a bit more calm. 

      We've never been snooty about allowing anyone in who has decent credibility, and I don't imagine anyone wants to change that.  Yet we've never been encumbered by noise, rants, or other time wasters.

      I love GSBN.  Long live GSBN and noble Bill who keeps us live.

      Thanks,

      Bruce King, PE

      March 19 -- 22, 2014, Sausalito, CA
      www.ecobuildnetwork.org
      (415) 987-7271
      Skype: brucekingokok
      Twitter: @brucekinggreen 
      http://bruce-king.com/

      On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Danny Buck <dannycbuck at msn.com> wrote:

        I totally agree with Derek. Well said as usual.

        Danny Buck

        On 2/28/14 9:46 AM, Derek Stearns Roff wrote:

          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.  

          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.  

          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.  

          Derek

          On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Bill Christensen wrote:

            On 2/27/14 8:10 PM, Frank Tettemer wrote:

              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.

              In an effort to leave no stones unturned, I would like to nominate the following:

              Dawn Marie Smith

              Anna Wolfson

              Michael Henry

              Emily Rydell Niehaus

              I'd also like to apologize to any of the people, nominated above, who are reading this right now,

              because, they are already on this list!

              I just didn't know.

            Dawn and Emily are already here.

            Anna, Michael, and Liz Johndrow are not yet (or they're unidentified non-contributors at the moment).

            I'll need their email addresses or better still they can sign up by following the link at the bottom of http://sustainablesources.com/GSBN/, and then let me now and I can make them contributing members.

            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.

            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).

            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.

            But I'd want to hear a decisive decision one way or the other from the majority of you.

            _______________________________________________
            GSBN mailing list
            GSBN at sustainablesources.com
            http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

          Derek Roff
          derek at unm.edu

_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at sustainablesources.com
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

        _______________________________________________
        GSBN mailing list
        GSBN at sustainablesources.com
        http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at sustainablesources.com
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

    _______________________________________________
    GSBN mailing list
    GSBN at sustainablesources.com
    http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  GSBN mailing list
  GSBN at sustainablesources.com
  http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20140228/cb0138a7/attachment.htm>