tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4323202250325013491.post4550597599011373821..comments2007-12-12T11:16:26.908-05:00Kevin Gamblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00659162207319457717noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4323202250325013491.post-90356679722957872602007-12-12T11:16:00.000-05:002007-12-12T11:16:00.000-05:002007-12-12T11:16:00.000-05:00I actually had several caveats for this post, and had started to write them. It was getting long and uninteresting. I figured I'd get the chance to clarify in the comments. :)<BR/><BR/>When it comes to your strong-ties network <8 then I am in total agreement. Although, I can think of many other ways those conversations could still occur outside of email.Kevinhttps://people.extension.org/kjgamblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4323202250325013491.post-16562052603727217182007-12-12T09:54:00.000-05:002007-12-12T09:54:00.000-05:002007-12-12T09:54:00.000-05:00Oh, I don't agree with the premise that email is one-to-one communication at ALL. <BR/><BR/>Email is the only good way to currently keep a small team apprised of non-broadcast (i.e. semi-private) issues that don't need to be dealt with immediately. And that don't require a lot of round-trip feedback<BR/><BR/>(e.g. the "For your information" notes for a small team < 7)<BR/><BR/>It's a terrible announcement mechanism. And not all that great for 1-to-1 communication.<BR/><BR/>1-to-1 communication is best done by other means today, IM particularly.<BR/><BR/>I'll buy in if we pick an arbitrary number, say one's work team. If the note goes to more than that, we can outlaw it, because there certainly are better broadcast methods.Jasonhttps://people.extension.org/jayoungnoreply@blogger.com