In Subject 1895, [email removed] writes:
> Mark Cook, has devised TDR mailing lists. Does this mean that all the TDR
> work is going to be done seperate from TML? Heck, shouldn't everyone in TML
> be interested in TDR? If we take the TDR out of TML, the volume of both will
> shrink, and there's a chance one will fall below critical mass. It's happened
> before.
Yes, Jim. TDR work IS going to be done separate from TML. That's the
whole idea.
We've already seen a fair amount of evidence that not every TML reader
IS interested in TDR. Also, while lots of interesting ideas get thrown
out on the TML, nothing very concrete every seems to come of it. With
SIGS, on the other hand, you've got a group of people who are dedicated
to a very specific goal. You also have a lot less background noise.
By way of example, working separate from the TML, Iain Fogg and I are
almost finished with a first draft of a personal combat system for TDR.
Folks have been bitching about MT combat on the TML for as long as I
can remember, but what rule changes have you seen generated as a result?
(BTW, for the rest of you TDR combat SIG members, it's only a first draft.
Iain and I are going to circulate it in the SIG about the middle of next
week, just as soon as I enter the changes from our last debate. Then
you all can rip it to shreds.) :-)
Every government and large commercial organization does exactly the
same thing. You create special committees to work on specific problems.
Then, when they produce a potential solution, you offer it to the
larger group (TML, in this case) for comments and a vote. That's
exactly what we're doing here.
> I'd rather see the majority of mail stay in TML. Sure, I won't save
> much of it, but I'll read, reply to anything I feel like, and delete.
This is my point. I wouldn't mind following the vehicle design debates,
or the trade & commerce discussions. But I rarely would expect to have
any worthwhile input, and I'd probably only save the final result. Why
give a lot of people the opportunity to frequently interrupt a group of
focused individuals when those interruptions might seriously slow down
the production of something useful? If an individual is interested
enough to offer SIGNIFICANT input to a SIG, then they should join it,
not just kibitz.
> PS failing that, put me one all the TDR mailing list.
I won't do that, Jim, and here's why:
They're not mailing lists, per se, since no one is responsible for
making a broadcast (like James does for TML). It's just to let
each member of a SIG know who else to send to, so as to solicit
feedback (LOTS of feedback). If you are particularly interested
in one or more of the areas, and feel you have something useful to
contribute, then join a SIG (or SIGs), by all means. But if you
just want to listen in and occasionally kick out an idea, you're
better off waiting for a draft from the SIG to come out. The
members of the SIG are better off too.
If it sounds like I'm trying to discourage you, you're partially
right. We want dedicated, involved people in the SIGs, who plan
to devote an obscene amount of time to producing new rules for TDR.
We're not expecting complete new rule sets overnight, but we would
like to see some tangible results during this presidental administration. :-)
If you'd like to get involved, send me a list of the SIGs you
want to join (not all of them, for heavens sake!) and I'll add
you to them. I'll also make sure that all the other SIG members
know you've joined.
BTW, for the TML at large, I'm no longer going to announce new
SIG members to the entire readership, since only the current
members of a given SIG need to be advised. If anyone is interested
in the current membership of a particular TDR SIG, send me a letter
and I'll let you know.
Later,
- Mark F. Cook (TDR Archivist)