Re: DEN status

[Kromkowski@aol.com]

<< In his recent post replying to JD,  TSgt John Hamilton Jr.
 wrote: "Not all of us who apply to the DEN, reply to the DEN.  Most of us 
either
 agree with the line of information being presented or have no comment about
 it.  "
 I would agree, there is an underlying assumption that all DEN related
 communication is in the public domain -- I am sure that I am not alone as a
 DEN member who uses the back-channel to contributors and other colleagues
 when topics get raised 'up front'.  The level and frequency of this
 communication is clearly unseen.<<

Regarding the Back-Channel:

  I made no underlying assumption, I realize that there is back-channel but 
quite frankly I'm generally against it because it reduces the amount 
collectively learning on the DEN.  Indeed the more important a topic or 
issues or question, all the more reason that it should be on-DEN rather than 
off-DEN.  In that respect, it _might_ be argued that whatever is back-channel 
is more likely not that important anyway.

>>from JD on his point:
 
 >>>my control chart of the number of posts per month since 7/97
 suggests that maybe we should discuss on the DEN the possible reasons for
 the decline in volume during the last year.  After reviewing my posts from
 pre-June of 97, and recollecting over the last five years of the DEN,
 maybe we've finally come around to having collectively written on just about
 every potential DEN topic.>>>
 
 I would be very cautious to use that which is easily measurable as a guide
 to the value or level of activity that the DEN generates,  visible quantity
 of postings alone cannot, and should not, be used as a proxy for quality or
 total activity of the DEN community.  - we don't have all the data!!! >>

Re: Quantity, Quality, and improvement

1.  I'm am pretty capable of writing what I mean and I have never suggested 
that quantity is a proxy for quality.  But surely you can't suggest that we 
can say that the quality of the DEN has improved over the last 5 years.  By 
what method would we make this claim?

2.  If you read my post, I said the available data suggests that we should 
look for a reason for a special cause.  I suggested a hypothesis or 
explanation.   If you have a different hypothesis, state it.

3.  If the available data is not sufficient, then we (or more appropriately 
the management of the DEN) should figure out a different measure or way to 
get at it.  Again, by what method is the DEN going to improve itself?  It's 
one thing to say that the much important information is unknown and 
unknowable, it's is quite another thing to use that as an excuse for failure 
to have a plan for improving the methods for achieving the aim.

John David Kromkowski
Attorney at Law
6600 York Road - Suite 108
Baltimore, Maryland   21212-2028
Kromkowski@aol.comTelephone:  (410) 377-6248Facsimile:  (410) 372-0624
====================================================================