This message should be posted to the current version of AML-List. So far as I can tell, nothing of this sort has gone out--so that, for instance, those of us on AML-List did not know that reviews could no longer be posted there.

One of the reasons there have been few posts to the current AML-List is because of strange things in the way posts are supposed to go out. Other posts have (to my knowledge) been sent in but simply not appeared (at least two of mine so far).

It would be useful also to know who is currently acting as the AML-List moderator, and whether the bottleneck is because (a) that person is swamped; (b) there are technical problems with the list; or (c) there has simply not been that much activity. I'm not intending to point fingers of blame here--there were times when I, as AML-List moderator, couldn't spend the time I needed and had to put the list on a hiatus. But it's important to know what the source of the problems is.

From the President and Board of AML

In last night's meeting of the AML board, we had a long discussion about the AML email list, and its future in the organization. I've had private email exchanges with a few of you, and we hope to hear from more of you. We're always interested in feedback about how we can best facilitate this continuing conversation about Mormon culture, writing, criticism and literature.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I want to begin with a personal note: I consider myself a creature of the List too. I was a very active participant in the List for many years. I remember my participation with great fondness, and I know it greatly enriched my life. I am certain that if I weren't in the position I'm in, if this anonymous entity called the AML Board moved the list to a different format, I would have been one of the loudest voices protesting such a move. I really like the new Discussion Board format, but I also know that the email format has real benefits and virtues.

We had several reasons for deciding to shift to the Discussion board format. First, we're in the process of redesigning the website, and it seemed to make sense to make other changes at the same time. Second, our new student chapter of AML was very vocal in saying how much they disliked the email format: it was old-fashioned, a dinosaur. Third, and most important, though, was all the negative feedback we began to receive about the List. New members were particularly turned off by it, by the personal agendas, by discussions that were hardly even tangentially about literature, by a sense that a new AML orthodoxy had been imposed on the discussion. We heard from people who wrote things like 'I want to talk about books, not whether gay people can help being gay,' or people who emailed saying 'can't a conservative even voice an opinion without being attacked?' I noticed it too; a real change in tone and tenor of the discussion on the List. I stopped participating, too.

I don't want to suggest that the problems I'm identifying here are the fault of R. W. Rasband, who we are very grateful to, and who we thank for the fine job he's done as List moderator. And it's certainly not true that R.W. has simply let anything go through. What I think has happened is that R.W. was getting such a preponderance of questionable posts that he had to make some very difficult judgment calls, in an effort to keep traffic flowing while stopping those posts that were most egregiously outside our List guidelines. Moderating the List is a big job, and we were grateful to have R. W. willing to do it. And looking back at the posts he did stop, it's clear that he was doing an outstanding job keeping the tone from becoming even more rancorous. Even so, we had to ask ourselves if the List was really serving the needs of the organization, and if the time had come to switch entirely over to the Discussion Board format.

We also came to realize that some people who posted actively on the List were not members of AML. And since we regarded participation on the List as a perquisite of membership, we decided to require membership in order to post on the Discussion Board.

I take full responsibility for what happened next. Clearly the changes we were proposing were seen as precipitous and ill-conceived by many long-time List participants and long-time AML members. In addition, it's very clear that we-I should say I-did not communicate the reasons for the changes we were making clearly enough, or in a timely fashion. I apologize to everyone who I offended. We're a small, understaffed, volunteer organization, and we learned that we can only focus on a few things at a time. With the Writers' Conference looming, we tried to do too many things in too short a timeframe. We should have dealt with the Conference first, and then handled the transition from an email format to a Discussion Board when we had the time to do it properly.

In the midst of what we on the board have taken to calling 'the late unpleasantness,' we decided to keep the email list a little longer while we decided exactly what we were going to do. And what has happened is that traffic on the List has essentially disappeared. A few members have very strongly suggested that we should keep both an email format and the Discussion Board, and let people post on whichever one they want to. But the current traffic on the List suggests that most people have now managed to switch over to the Discussion Board.

Here's what I propose:

1) We would like to thank R. W. Rasband for his service to AML, and ask him to stick around as AML-List moderator from now until January 10.

2) After January 10, we will discontinue the email format AML-List, and continue the conversation on the Discussion Board. UNLESS . . .

3) Someone else, someone approved by the Board and someone who has the time and energy to stick very strictly to revised AML-List guidelines volunteers to serve as a new moderator.

If anyone would like to volunteer for that responsibility, please contact me or any other Board member as soon as possible. If no one has volunteered by January 1st, then we will proceed with our plans to discontinue the List on the 10th.

Thanks to all of you who have expressed your views on this matter. We apologize for the hurt feelings we have caused in the past. Understand that our main interest is for the future of the organization, and the continuing cause of Mormon literature.

Sincerely yours,

Eric Samuelsen, AML President
November 29, 2007

I hate to add to the snivelling, but hey...it's what I'm good at and the one area where I've consistently excelled over the years.

A post in two parts. First, the emotional and then the pragmatic.

The Emotional Response
I just had the disconcerting experience of posting something to the old AML-List and having it appear here on the forums under the authorship of the AML Administrator. I was neither asked to cross post, nor did the AML solicit my permission for adding my post to this forum.

To be honest, that feels extremely disrespectful of me as author. This sense that I am no longer a respected contributor (perhaps I never was a respected contributor) to the discussion of Mormon letters has made my former joy at participation is these sorts of discussions turn quite sour over the past six weeks.

This apparent lack of concern for me as both author and human is what fuels an increasing discontent for me with AML discussion in particular, and the AML organization in general. I have some suggestions for the AML as a whole (I think an open discussion of the goals and purposes of AML would be useful; the organization appears to be transitioning again and open discussion about where it intends to land would also be useful), but I'll make those in another post.

I think the AML would be well served to take a little extra time right now and be extra sensitive to the fact that sudden radical change tends to unsettle the troops--not because we're inherently averse to the change itself, but because we want to be reassured that we still matter and that there's still a place for us in the new world order.

Of course the possibility exists that the new AML is specifically not interested in my participation. I am, after all, part of several explicitly identified problems of the old AML List:

1) I have been a participant in many of the pointless and acrimonious pseudo-flamewars of the last few years. I have specifically jousted (unsatisfyingly) with both Chris Heimerdinger and D. Michael Martindale. My only defense is that I felt in each case there was an underlying principle associated with either Mormon letters or polite discourse that needed to be defended, so I did so--not always successfully, and certainly not always with the self-discipline and considered discourse that I would like to be known for.

2) I have regularly posted meanders that had more to do with personal therapy than Mormon letters. It's what happens when you feel comfortable with a group of people--you open up a little more on the personal struggle as it intersects with the larger discussion and end up going tangent to the literary charter. No real defense except that I always tried to return to the discussion of Mormon lit, film or culture as the core concept.

3) I have taken up an inordinate amount of space. No excuses; it's just the way I work. Words come easy for me, and writing is a way of helping to solidify thoughts. In self-defense, those lengthy meanders have generated or sustained more than a few worthy discussions over the years.

4) I am not a student and thus am not part of the future of the AML. This is a snarky comment, but the move to support student requests has been rapid and massive, while the effort to preserve the participation of we mid-timers (my participation does not qualify for old-timer status; I'm part of the distinctly non-academic populist wave of twelve years ago) has been significantly less rapid or massive.

This wouldn't bother me so much except that the student-sponsored event I attended at BYU was so poorly represented by students as to be embarrassing. Of the seven people who attended Scott Bronson's excellent presentation on theater in October three of us were non-students, two students were AML student chapter leadership, one student was a personal friend of the presenter, and the one remaining student was there as a matter of duty for a class assignment and left just over half-way through the presentation.

In other words, the students didn't represent. Just as they have not swarmed to this discussion forum specifically created from/for their feedback, they have not swarmed to support student chapter events sponsored on their behalf.

Which is okay--all organizations need to be built over time, and students by nature tend to be seasonally affected. It wouldn't bother me at all except that my mid-timer community (the AML List) was simply shut off to support their needs rather than being transitioned to support mine.

Which seems a simple mistake of tactics. While spinning up new instruments and programs, continue to sustain the existing ones through a transition period to enable crossover and behavioral change. Yes, that costs time and effort; but that effort is the price of new programs and the sustaining costs can decrease rapidly over time if properly communicated and managed.

Unless there are other reasons that are not being expressed. This possibility is where my admittedly paranoid mind dwells, and where my emotional cauldron boils.

If continued participation by old AML List people is desirable, consider taking a little more time and a little more effort to reassure. So far the response from AML has been quite impatient and has tended toward autocracy (this is how it is; deal with it), anger (how dare you question our motives), self-pity (we work hard and are hurt that you're hurt), and mockery (just hit Reply All--duh!).

That sense of impatience feels intensely disrespectful of the old List and its participants. I understand that you have moved on after a period of internal planning and discussion, but we old List members are still in the grieving phase and would appreciate just a bit more patience as we readjust. You certainly are under no obligation to provide that, but I think it would be nice if you did.


The Pragmatic Response
I suppose the fundamental question is whether you want to transition AML List participants to this forum or whether you want to make a clean cut and let only the strongest (or at least most motivated--not exactly the same thing...) survive.

My assumption here is that AML List is fully and completely going away and no argument will change that fact; the only distinction is how that goal is executed.

---

If the goal is rapid change with functional social Darwinism, understand that cutting out any cancer also involves losing some healthy tissue and accept that fact without remorse. You will lose some people you would like to retain; if they really want to stay connected they will find the new forums on their own after they've worked out their personal rage.

I would do the following:

* Make one more post on AML List reiterating that the AML has chosen a new direction.

* State clearly (or restate clearly) what that new direction is and why the existing forum is being discontinued; make simple declarative statements and avoid both defensiveness and criticism of the existing forum.

* Reiterate the end date (currently January 10).

* Step away and allow the List members to rage; do not respond to taunts, snivels, or cheap shots; do not cross-post anything or otherwise acknowledge a connection between the old and new.

* Find a way to build a true AML List archives so that the good is preserved and accessible along with the bad; make that archives available in some form through the AML Web site.

* Fully, completely, and permanently end the List on the announced date; do not look back or give in to the temptation to prolong.

---

If the intent is to transition existing AML List members to the new forum, consider a slightly extended two month transition period.

* Automatically enroll all AML List members in the AML Discussion Board with minimal profile (name, email only; fully manual interaction with the Discussion Board--aka, no RSS feeds, no notifications, nothing); send private emails to each member explaining how to update their profiles beyond simply name and email. Implement a 6-month non-participation policy and remove auto-enrolled non-participants at the end of that period as a matter of housekeeping.

* Make an(other) omnibus post to the List explaining clearly what the timeline is for full transition and explicitly identifying key dates, what the end goal is, how to engage the new forum, and what the new rules of the forum are.

* In a separate post, announce the creation of an AML List Transition forum here on the AML Discussion Board and the policy that every post to AML List will be automatically posted to the transition forum. Make sure posts on the transition forum retain the original author's status as poster. Understand that some AML List members will storm off in protest.

* Spend the administrative overhead needed to sub-categorize the AML List Transition forum posts into topics based on Subject line and to properly track replies; the goal here is to enable current AML List participants to use their email interface to post to this board.

* Post new book reviews on AML List as book attributes and first one or two paragraphs, with a link to the remainder of the review here on the Discussion Board; this feeds both the sense of connection to--and value of--the existing AML List, and introduces existing List members to the environment of the Discussion Board over time and with familiar interfaces.

* Recruit 1-4 people to do a regular discussion starter pseudo-essay as a branded, systematized column similar to the old AML List columns (Bard of Monday, Critic's Corner, Of Good Report, etc.). Post this column both on AML List and on the Discussion Board and synch content between both forums--List and Board replies going to both forums. Make the columns their own forum on this Board; duplicate that forum in the AML List Transition forum (useful redundancy). A student-driven column sponsored by the student chapter is a good idea; by posting that in both areas you again build bridges between the List and the Board and faciliate both familiarity and transition--build a bigger tent.

* Send out weekly reminders that the email-delivered AML List will discontinue operations on a specified date (I would choose February 1).

* Write a FAQ that explains (with graphics) how to enable email-based access to Board topics and walks new initiates through common tasks. Excellent content has already been written here on the boards; aggregate and re-post that to the AML List as an intro and link to the topic on this Discussion Board.

* Allow AML List people to vent their spleen, concern, and frustration for a full month within the AML List Transition forum without comment. Where AML Board members choose to respond, please do so with gentle cooing sounds designed to acknowledge and smooth rather than with defense or counter-frustration. Right now most AML List members just want to feel wanted and have their shock and hurt at the abrupt transition acknowledged. That means taking some unfair shots from hurt List members. The vast majority of of AML Board member posts to AML List that do acknowledge also contain defensiveness that completely undermines the acknowledgement; resist the urge to defend and allow the stages of grief to progress. You'd be amazed at how much goodwill a simple mea culpa--without self justification--can go to take the edge off of peoples' hurt.

* For AML List member posts outside of the AML List Transition forum use a very firm moderating style designed to reintroduce the forms of polite discourse to those of use who have allowed our discipline to lapse. Take the time to bounce posts and patiently recover the willing (or kiss-off the unwilling) to a more moderate tone. If the Boards are not moderated that way, then police them daily and remove offending content while sending a private email to the offendor explaining why. Let them rage, but stand firm on the importance of polite discourse as a foundation of AML Discussion Boards.

* Firmly discontinue AML List operations on the announced date and resist calls to keep it running. The cord has to be cut; just make sure people have plenty of time to get ready for it and understand that some simply won't make the transition at all or will require an extended grieving period before they make their way back.

* Thank the AML List for having provided real and useful service to the AML even though recent history has not been so positive. Provide at least a minimal memorial for it that only remembers the good; the fact of its end is of itself full acknowledgement of its eventual failures and requires no further comment. In other words, allow us to believe that the AML List was more than just a failure even if you feel otherwise.

---

The key here is to show respect to the old AML List community by giving us a long runway to move over. If we choose not to move, that long runway puts the guilt firmly on us; the short runway allows us to blame you.

Transition, growth, and change are all part of the AML; managing that change is hard and something that must be learned over time.

For what it's worth.

Scott

After cruising around on the Discussion Boards a bit it looks like you've already implemented many of the suggestions I had for the smooth transition method. Sadly I haven't been here (or there) for several weeks--travelling for business (just got back from a trip to London, Doncaster, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Glasgow--all in three days; bragging, I know, but it had its fun moments...), so I hadn't recognized the overlap over the past several weeks.

My only remaining suggestion would be to overcommunicate over on the AML List for another month or so and explicitly state the fact that posts are appearing on both fora for the next few weeks.

Scott

For anyone who doesn't know Darlene personally, take it from me, she really is as sweet and without guile as her posts make her out to be.

Thom

---

Thom Duncan
Playwright, Novelist, Poet, Lyricist, Screenwriter, Curmudgeon

I would like to second the notion that Darlene is kind, sweet, and w/o guile.
It appears to me that what happened on the list has just happened on this thread. Persons vent. Persons get upset. Persons don't want their posts edited, but wish others were more polite to them.
Why can't we all be more like Darlene. Why, when we are offended, can't we ask ourselves, "What would Darlene do?"

Alan Mitchell javascript:insertsmiley(' ','/images/emoticons/icon_cool.gif')
[cool]

Thanks for the perspective, Alan.

Sadly, I'm not as good a human being as Darlene is. I should have simply gone away without comment, but it's too late for that now.

Naja.

I'm still here. I have some real questions about the goals, ideals, and assumptions of both the AML and this forum, though. Which is a bit of a bummer because I've been a fairly aggressive supporter of AML for most of the last twelve years, but I'm frankly distressed by some of the policies and rhetoric that I've heard out of our leadership recently.

It's their organization and they can do what they want. The only thing I can do is re-evaluate whether my goals are still sufficiently compatible with the organization's changing charter to make it useful to me or them to hang around.

Besides, storming out the room now and again just proves that I have an artistic temperament, right?

Or maybe all it proves that I have severe gas...or something.