Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
> First...perhaps you don't know the recent history of this list. This past
> winter-spring someone from Getty wrote to me (and Woody) advising us what
> was happening at the Getty...a big turnaround. (Why they picked
> us I have no clue.) Anyway, this started a really big scare with lots of
> was going to do away with the artsednet as we know it. The rumors were
> largely true.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to know why Getty was thinking of chopping
this list. If there was a big turnaround and change of personnel, perhaps
it had nothing to do with the actual discussion on the list, but was only
the outcome of a bureaucratic whim. Did anyone at Getty ever give you a
reason other than money? And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, unless I'm
missing something in my knowledge of how a listserv works, there is little
if any capital input beyond setting up the initial software, making sure
there is sufficient lines and memory to handle the load, and normal
mainframe maintenance. If they say they are dumping big bucks into this
list, I'd like to see an accounting of what they're spending, on what, how
and why, especially considering the problems we've had with Lyris this past
> Some board members want to use the large chunk of $$$ for other ventures.
> Getty doesn't benefit by keeping this listserv. There is no profit for
Excuse me; I didn't think there *was* supposed to be any profit for them.
They are a Foundation for supporting the arts, are they not? It is their
job to use their funding to support the arts; this list is supposed to be
one of the ways they do that.
> Because the team has been cut to one is why our archives have been slashed
> and are behind.
Now this is something which I know for a fact, at least about the software
which runs my list: archiving is a part of the software architecture and *is
automatic*. However, if Lyris doesn't do this automatically, then they
either need to get a different software, or bear the cost of doing things
manually which others do automatically.
> Some of the board members...I am told...are not loyal to
> this list either.
Well, now, there certainly is a point of some concern! Does anyone know any
more about this? These board members are committed/loyal to the Arts, are
they not? Will Getty discontinue the list if we talk about them?
> Getty knows the value of a forum for art educators and chooses to keep us
> together for another year despite the other avenues and despite the
> overhead. I understand this. Our scare has opened my eyes to the tenuous
> ground on which our listserv stands. It would be a real shame if
> some people wanted to "make a stand" and threaten our dear list.
So, what I'm reading is that Getty has the upper hand and is in control of
this list? That it can dictate what can and cannot be discussed, even if
"off topic" subjects catch the interest, momentarily, of enough members to
kick it around?
And that we should submit to their dictum because we are so dependent upon
But we aren't, are we?
> In all reality Getty is calling the shots.
Then apparently Getty has something to learn about free expression, which
is, after all, a topic relevant to Art, is it not?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 12:52:05 PDT