From: "John J. Deneen" <JJDeneen@ricochet.net>
A great tool for measuring collaboration progress anonymously and performing a
"gap analysis" for seeking closure was developed by Charles Anders:
http://www.strategicinit.com/
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com>
>
> Great comments, Henry.
> Wouldn't it be nice if every paragraph in the original
> was a node in an outline, and everytime you pressed
> "reply" you could insert your response in the middle?
>
> Wouldn't be great if all the documents in the system
> has evaluation tags that showed the average evaluation
> and the number of evaluators, and perhaps the distribution?
> That would help solve the "which ideas are really good?"
> problem.
>
> (Showing the distribution just occurred to me. If the
> distribution for 1..5 scale were something like
> 10 2 1 2 10
> you would know that even though the average was "3",
> there was a polarity of opinions on the subject...
>
> Anyway, thanks for adding your thoughts.
> They're keepers.
>
> Henry van Eyken wrote:
> >
> > From: Henry van Eyken <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
> >
> > Myself, I can't say anything yet about lessons from Session 8 because
> > I am
> > not there yet. But from life's experience, contacts, and reading, I
> > have an
> > affinity for what Eric is writing here. I must say, first off, that I
> > am
> > always a little scared of taking a lofty bird's eye view of worldly
> > and
> > business affairs and generalizing them in neat principles. (I
> > understand
> > that in his later years, Dr. Spock, once the guru of child raising,
> > had come
> > to the conclusion he had been quite wet. And, without ever having paid
> > that
> > much attention, I understand that many a business and stock market
> > guru has
> > gone down a similar path.) Nevertheless, there appears to be a lot
> > here that
> > one can attest to. Allow me to just intersperse a comment here and
> > there.
> >
> > Eric Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com>
> > >
> > > In this post, I'm going to strongly take issue with one of Doug's
> > > basic operating assumptions. The investigation, I think, explains
> > > why Doug's vitally important ideas have been languishing for so
> > > long. It also suggests why that situation is about to change
> > > drastically, although not for the reasons that Doug thinks.
> > >
> > > To anticipate the conclusion, the reason is the Internet. But
> > > understanding how and why the paradigm shift will actually
> > > occur is pivotal to knowing how to proceed -- to proceed in any
> > > other way is, in essence, to throw yourself at a brick wall and
> > > hope that it falls down. If we want to bring that wall down, and
> > > we must, then we must use the appropriate tools and target
> > > them in the right way...
> > >
> > > [This is another "can't help myself" post. I'm too busy to
> > > write it, but it's too important to put off.]
> > >
> > > Doug's Hypothesis
> > > -----------------
> > > In session 8, Doug made two points that are central to his
> > > approach:
> > > 1) We need to improve an organization's capability for
> > > improving their capabilities
> > >
> > > 2) This can happen with good show-screen technology,
> > > so that others can "look over your shoulder" and see
> > > how you do things.
> > >
> > > I'm going to pick up on an argument I started a while back,
> > > and argue even more strenuously that this approach is simply
> > > not going to work. Before proceeding to a counter proposal,
> > > let's see "what's wrong with this picture".
> > >
> > > There are several reasons that prevent this approach from
> > > being viable. Chief among them are:
> > > 1) Organizations simply do not work that way.
> > > While some seriously desire to improve their productive
> > > capacities, virtually none want to "improve their
> > > capability to improve".
> >
> > Comment: I understand that people deep down in their guts want
> > concrete
> > models, not abstract ones. The "B" step touches on the concrete, you
> > are
> > changing something concrete. The "C" step tends to be abstract -- it
> > is
> > about changing change -- and it seems to me that the means by wich
> > the
> > concept is trying to make headway in this Colloquium -- up to where I
> > am and
> > moderating my comment by some uncertainty as to how well I have
> > digested
> > things -- is by concretizing with interludes that approach case
> > studies.
> > Notice how every survey comes with questions whether a certain "case
> > study"
> > helped the participant to better understand bootstrapping. The process
> > of
> > abstraction comes from generalizing a bunch of concrete cases. A
> > leading
> > thinker, who has looked at a lot of concrete stuff, may see a pattern.
> > The
> > pattern doesn't sell easily; the potential buyer must either be made
> > to
> > perceive the pattern himself or he must trust the seller implicitly;
> > and
> > also trust that he himself is salesman enough to sell the pattern to
> > others.
> > (A pre-arranged golden parachute may also make the pattern go down --
> > like a
> > little sugar ....)
> >
> > >
> > > 2) If that is the case, then only by completely reinventing
> > > the organizational concept can any headway be achieved.
> > > That paradigm shift cannot gradually evolve. It requires
> > > an abrupt transition such as only occurs in the wake of
> > > a catastrophe.
> >
> > First sentence is too fast for me, but aren't paradigms very much
> > patterns
> > in the unconscious, like breathing. Too bad that I can't remember that
> > little poem about the centipede who was asked to give an account of
> > how he
> > did his walking. He has been tripping over himself ever since. Moral
> > of the
> > story: don't be too easily tempted to cast away comfy paradigms. But
> > if you
> > HAVE to, ...
> >
> > >
> > > 3) Even if it were a viable approach for an existing
> > > organization, it would require a "top down" commitment
> > > from management. As I'll argue later on, paradigm shifts
> > > simply do not occur that way. Rather, they come from the
> > > other direction.
> >
> > I think that people who have reached their level of competence prefer
> > to sit
> > pretty. But the surrounding forces may not let them sit pretty if they
> > admit
> > to that.
> >
> > >
> > > 4) To understand why such a project is anathema to management,
> > > it must be understood that the risks are huge. First, the
> > > cost of failure is high.
> >
> > Isn't that where golden parachutes come in. To get top-executive
> > thinking
> > over the hump.
> >
> > > And, to succeed, it will likely
> > > require change to the organizational model. Such change is
> > > always risky, and usually resisted by lower echelons who
> > > perceive it as "interference". That makes the rewards highly
> > > uncertain. And even if the rewards accrue, the payback
> > > period is so long, and the results so far removed from the
> > > source, that there is a serious danger that the
> > > contributions will not even be recognized.
> > >
> > > In other words, any manager interested in his career, from the
> > > CEO down, is going to have to think 20 or 30 times before even
> > > attempting to work on setting up an infrastructure that aims to
> > > improve the organizations ability to improve.
> > >
> > > There is another way, however. I suspect it is the *only* way
> > > for the desired result to be achieved -- not because that is the
> > > way I wish things to be, but because that is how, observation
> > > suggests to me, they are.
> > >
> >
> > Like investing. A prudent investor increasingly moves into blue chips
> > when
> > nearing retirement age. (Wonder how much longer the concept of blue
> > chips
> > will persist in this rapidly changig world.)
> >
> > >
> > > A Counter Proposal
> > > ------------------
> > > The bottom line in organizational penetration is that no one is
> > > going to care *how* I do what I do until they see spectacular
> > > results. Even then, management is likely to be unconcerned about
> > > the process -- it is only the results that count. And coworkers,
> > > who can be expected to be interested in the process, will only
> > > typically be motivated only to the extent that proven success
> > > derives from it.
> >
> > Anecdotal confirmation of first sentence. During the "industrial part"
> > of my
> > life, I was hired by two organizations. In neither I was told what my
> > job
> > was. And as an immigrant, glad to get an offer, I never asked. Just
> > broght
> > home the bacon ...
> > One should think this must have changed a bit ever since organizations
> > got
> > leaner and meaner. Or not?
> >
> > >
> > > The point then, is that DKR penetration will occur not by
> > > showing the process, but by showing results. How can those
> > > results be achieved?
> > >
> > > Those results will be achieved first by *individuals* in an
> > > organization who are connected to a DKR that makes them more
> > > productive. The internet will make that scenario possible,
> > > because it will allow multiple professionals in a given
> > > discipline to share the knowledge they need to succeed.
> > >
> >
> > Luncheon in the club ... golf links ... watering holes ... cafetarias
> > with
> > white blackboards ... Internet (a line of progression that makes
> > sharing
> > info cheaper, faster; but kinds of information shared seem
> > qualitatively
> > different with lower "policy" content when going down the line).
> >
> > And now come the paragraphs I really like...
> >
> > >
> > > Imagine for a moment that you are participating in the design
> > > of an information system, and you have a DKR at your disposal
> > > that combines the expertise of professionals all over the
> > > world. Imagine in addition that the authoring environment
> > > is so superb that you can construct designs in minutes, cite
> > > references to the underlying papers, and be educated in new
> > > design patterns, all in real time.
> > >
> > > How big a role do think you would play in that project? What
> > > is the likelihood that you would be credited with much of its
> > > success?
> > >
> > > The odds are good that you would be perceived as one of the
> > > leading designers. Promotion to project lead status would
> > > follow rapidly.
> > >
> > > Now, you are in charge of your own project. By now one or two
> > > others have inquired as to how you do what you do, and you
> > > have shown them. Word is spreading.
> > >
> > > More importantly, though, you are now in a position to move
> > > your whole team onto the DKR. Where before you used the DKR
> > > for general design information, now you begin using it for
> > > collaborating on the project at hand.
> > >
> > > [Note:
> > > Use of the DKR for a company project requires a "firewall"
> > > of sorts -- the information on your project must not leak out
> > > to competitors until the project has borne fruit. But on the
> > > day you are free to publish the design concepts, it should only
> > > require pushing a button to do so.]
> > >
> > > Let's say your project succeeds wildly. Odds are good that it
> > > will. More promotions follow. As you and your team members
> > > disperse throughout this and other organizations, success and
> > > interest in the technology follows. At this point, widespread
> > > penetration of the DKR concept is being achieved, not from the
> > > top down, but from the bottom up.
> > >
> > > It is worth noting here that we are talking about something
> > > beyond an Open HyperDocument System. We are talking about
> > > a truly dynamic knowledge repository -- something that
> > > records principles and case studies, which provides
> > > "education on demand" to its users. In short, we are talking
> > > about something which produces "collective IQ" by making
> > > available to all what is known to each.
> > >
> > > As Jim Spohrer pointed out in his Education Object Economy,
> > > it is attribution that motivates individual contributions to
> > > the DKR. Attribution is the "coin of the realm" here, as it
> > > is in academic societies. With a DKR that preserves attributions,
> > > therefore, one can expect the volume of contributions to be
> > > high.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, even businesses have information they like to
> > > share. Although there is also information they don't can't afford
> > > to share. For example, they may need to safeguard the knowledge
> > > of the blind alleys they investigated, because the cost of
> > > discovering that information may have a been a significant cost
> > > of development. Sharing that information gives their competitors
> > > big advantages that they themselves did not have.
> > >
> > > Even so, there is much information that an organization feels
> > > compelled to share. To win customers, they frequently want to
> > > publish "how it works" design articles. They also tend to be
> > > proud of their practices. Often, they will willing publish
> > > information about the technologies or methodologies they used,
> > > even if they are loathe to share the details of what they
> > > discovered using those processes.
> > >
> > > But even if we discount *all* the late-breaking information
> > > discovered by business, there is the matter of the huge volume
> > > of information published in books, magazines, journals, papers,
> > > and Web articles. If the DKR *only* improved the ability to
> > > organize, evaluate, access, and understand that information, it
> > > would *still* promote the kind of success that will lead to
> > > its eventual supremacy in a "survival of the fittest" business
> > > climate.
> > >
> > > The foregoing has been a picture of what, I suggest, is likely
> > > to happen. As Rob Swigart so aptly pointed out in his wonderful
> > > presentation on "Future Scenarios" at the beginning of session 8,
> > > the scenario above results from "assessing the implications". In
> > > this case, we're looking at the implication of DKR availability,
> > > and the implications of the technology, given the world as we
> > > know it to operate.
> > >
> > > The section that follows deals with the subject in a more
> > > abstract way, making the case for why that is the way it has
> > > to happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why It's Going to Work that Way
> > > -------------------------------
> > > It has been accepted that new ideas don't win out over old ones,
> > > but rather they ascend to prominence as the old guard dies off.
> > > That was true once, at least in the halls of academia.
> >
> > Yes, for stodgy academia. But not so in marketplace. And didn't
> > someone
> > point out that ther marketplace is spreading into academia. (No value
> > judgments intended.)
> >
> > >
> > > But now there is another way. Today, perpetuators of old ideas
> > > are frequently blindsided by crowds of young anarchists who
> > > muscle them aside and shove them into obsolescence.
> > >
> > > The difference is the Internet.
> >
> > "The" difference? "A" difference???
> > I am not obstructing the argument; just scared of oversatement.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is the Internet that has given me my voice. It has enabled me
> > > to reach out to a large number of people, with many ideas on a
> > > variety of topics.
> >
> > Yes, one can reach many people. Also there are many people trying to
> > reach
> > many people. And one can still only listen to one voice at a time. But
> > the
> > next paragraph is germane, provided the browsers possess the judgment
> > to
> > assess what are, in fact, good ideas. Again, I am not obstructing the
> > argument, just thinking along with the bouncing ball ...
> >
> > > In this medium, no asks "What are your
> > > credentials?" There are no reviewers to please, no peers to
> > > appease. The only questions anyone asks are "How good are
> > > the ideas?", "Do they make sense?", "Can they work?".
> > >
> > > The Internet represents a powerful, far reaching change in our
> > > evolutionary environment.
> >
> > Now it gets interesting ...
> >
> > >
> > > Guilds were slow to evolve. Changes in technology only occurred
> > > when those in charge approved, which often required the literal
> > > dying off of the old guard. Academia, in many ways, functions as
> > > a "guild" system. For all the invaluable, incalculable benefit it
> > > has brought to humanity, it can still be remarkably slow to embrace
> > > new truths. The cause is the same: The months and years it takes to
> > > put together a concept presentation that is sure to satisfy every
> > > reviewer, the need to appease those who head the guild, and the
> > > natural resistance to new ideas that results from having neither
> > > time nor energy to fully understand and embrace them.
> >
> > Yes, yes, after all, it isn't the new ideas that count, it is the
> > established gentry.
> >
> > >
> > > Granted, that system has performed the laudable goal of preventing
> > > trickery from masquerading as science. Snake oil salesmen have
> > > by and large been kept out of the club. And obviously inaccurate
> > > thinking has been kept at bay -- not always, but much of the time.
> > > That has all been to the good.
> > >
> > > But in a time of radically accelerating change, that system really
> > > has no hope of keeping up. Fortunately, the Internet is providing
> > > a "marketplace" of ideas and educational opportunities that may
> > > well provide the solution.
> > >
> > > Just as the emergence of free markets spelled the end of
> > > technology guilds -- not all at once, but in time, the emergence of
> > > the idea-exchange Internet may signal the end of the academic guild
> > > system.
> > >
> >
> > Strikes me that information management in academia is more disciplined
> > than
> > on the Net.
> > And info overload beclouds [rudent assessment. Especially for mental
> > slowpokes like myself and in the absence of the co-evolving of ideas
> > more
> > rapidly brought into contact with one another in single minds. (My
> > gawd,
> > what a lousy sentence.)
> >
> > >
> > > In a free market, those who produce more, better, faster, or cheaper
> > > became the winners. Newer technologies proved their worth, and
> > > older technologies were obsoleted. The process began a century
> > > or two ago, and has been accelerating every day up to the crazy
> > > pace we see today.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, individual organizations have been largely "guild
> > systems"
> > > in nature. That was especially true early in the 20th century, when
> > > lifetime employment was the rule.
> > >
> > > However, "lifetime employment" was put to an end by the simultaneous
> > > growth of a communications medium which presented job offers and a
> > > transportation medium that made it possible to take advantage of
> > them.
> >
> > I thought that lifetime employment (and its close relative,
> > paternalistic
> > employment) came to an en because of (a) the sudden rush of everybody
> > wanting to be lean and mean and (b) automation. But that the growth of
> > the
> > communications medium has simply provided an opportunity for those who
> > were
> > ejected from the system. Geez, one has got to know when hell of a lot
> > of
> > facts for sure, for sure before one can arrive at overarching
> > conclusions.
> > My mind is reeling.
> >
> > One effect, as far as I observed, has been the baby boom and the need
> > to go
> > to younger managers. In my younger years, I saw smokestack industries
> > under
> > engineering-type management and engineers adding an MBA to better
> > qualify.
> > Emphasis was on product. With baby boom and MBA-type management,
> > emphasis
> > shifted to bottom-line. "Our product is steel" became "our product is
> > money." Still is. But on the societal level that shouldn't be because
> > product and profit are just points in a cycle or spiral. To
> > concretize:
> >
> > Rags make paper
> > Paper makes money
> > Money makes banks
> > Banks make debts
> > Debts make beggars
> > Beggars make rags
> >
> > Engineering management and MBA management focus on different points in
> > the
> > cycle. But I am digressing ... or cycling
> >
> > > The result has been more free-flowing changing of old ideas for new
> > > ones in companies, as "new blood" was piped in.
> >
> > Damn paradigm!
> >
> > >
> > > Still, even though the pace of change has improved, organizations
> > still
> > > function very much as individual "guilds". Norman McEachron pointed
> > out
> > > the organizational mantra, spoken or unspoken, that is repeated in
> > > every organization across the globe: "We do it that way because we
> > > have always done it that way."
> > >
> > > The Internet is starting to change that, and we can be instrumental
> > in
> > > accelerating that process.
> > >
> > > In point of fact, EVERY PARADIGM SHIFT IS A GUERILLA WAR. That's
> > > a tautology, in fact. It's true by definition. The words "paradigm
> > > shift" imply a widely-held model of things are or should be, that is
> > > being held in place by large, collective forces. How does one
> > overthrow
> > > such a monster? Well, it doesn't happen "from the top down".
> >
> > Yes, but, may I temper this a bit. Maybe that MOST paradigm shifts ...
> > hell,
> > no. I don't like the phrase "paradigm shift." Paradigms are modified
> > to
> > lesser or greater extent.
> >
> > >
> > > Most organizations that try to change their corporate culture fail
> > > miserably.
> > > It is not an impossible task, but it is a daunting one that takes
> > > enormous
> > > perseverance, creativity, and time to carry out. And that process
> > only
> > > starts when the people "at the top" are persuaded it's a good idea.
> > In
> > > other
> > > words, when they have seen it in operation elsewhere, know that it
> > is
> > > good,
> > > and are motivated to put it into practice themselves.
> > >
> > > In other words, the "top down" approach, even when it succeeds, is
> > only
> > > good for copying successful paradigms -- not for introducing new
> > ones.
> >
> > Looks like a fair statement.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As a result, the introduction of a new paradigm is, of necessity, a
> > > guerilla
> > > operation. It starts small, winning little victories. It gathers
> > > supporters,
> > > achieves supporters, and proves it worth. Eventually it obsoletes
> > the
> > > old,
> > > _having successfully out-competed all other candidates for the
> > honor_.
> > >
> > > The Internet provides a massive opportunity to accelerate that
> > process.
> > > If you, as a member of a professional NIC, can be remarkably
> > successful
> > > at your job, then you will receive the promotions that put you in
> > charge
> > > of
> > > projects. If you then introduce that technology to your team, and
> > your
> > > team proves to be remarkably successful, then further promotions
> > follow.
> > >
> > > As you and your team members disperse throughout the organization,
> > and
> > > migrate to other organizations, the knowledge of "how to do things
> > > effectively"
> > > moves with you. When you take that knowledge to startups, or move
> > into
> > > high-level positions in an established organization, the technology
> > > moves to
> > > an organization-wide standing. When those organizations are
> > remarkably
> > > successful, the "paradigm copying" begins to take place, completing
> > the
> > > paradigm shift.
> > >
> > > That is how paradigm shifts happen. That is how this shift will
> > occur.
> > > But
> > > this shift is a change in the "meta-paradigm" -- the model for how
> > > paradigms
> > > are transmitted and perpetuated. By using the Internet wisely, we
> > will
> > > accelerate the process forever -- or at least until the lights run
> > out.
> > > :_)
> > >
> > > [Note:
> > > One counter argument might be the telephone. Initially a very
> > expensive
> > > tool, it was used only be executives. It "worked its way down"
> > through
> > > the organization by virtue of a) The status value of having one,
> > > b) lowered costs, and c) the real gain in productivity it provided.
> > This
> > > "status symbol" approach might be a model for top-down penetration
> > of a
> > > new technology into an organization. However, in the case of the
> > > telephone it seems reasonable to argue that it did not represent a
> > > paradigm shift so much as a faster way to do existing work. Where a
> > > paradigm shift like the computer is concerned, penetration into
> > > executive ranks has been remarkably slow, presumably due to the
> > amount
> > > of training required.]
> > >
> > > [Note:
> > > I think it's worth focusing on business, because that is where
> > guerilla
> > > operations can happen. Government and education are, by and large,
> > guild
> > > systems. That means paradigm changes happen from the top down, and
> > only
> > > when they are "proven" by experience.]
> > >
> >
> > In conclusion. I think we have an important contribution here,
> > primarily
> > because it tackles the important issue of DKR penetration. I still
> > have to
> > check out that business of Doug's "basic assumption." Either I have
> > missed
> > it or not retained it or still have to meet it.
> >
> > I also realize how hard it is to keep up with things. Took me much
> > time to
> > insert my notes. Still did so too hastely. And wonder if anybody has
> > the
> > patience to consider them.
> >
> > In short, in the age of argument overload, we need machines to analyze
> > arguments efficiently, just putting those aside for human
> > consideration that
> > involve right-brain interventions. And, no, I am not trying to be
> > funny.
> >
> > Note. One more word about paradigm (ahem) shifts. It strikes me that
> > many if
> > not most so-called leaders are followers. Remember the time that
> > everybody
> > went for diversification (creating a aero-space divisions of
> > baby-booty
> > companies) and then, a couple of years later suddenly all
> > follower-leaders
> > are focusing on their "core business." Etc.
> >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > Eric Armstrong
> > > Mountain View CA
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as
> > > 0.0% Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no
> > > hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
> > > you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
> > > http://click.egroups.com/1/966/0/_/444287/_/951603345/
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Community email addresses:
> > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> > >
> > > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> >
> > --
> > Fleabyte -- http://www.fleabyte.org -- is
> > an evolving, experimental web-publication
> > devoted to public computency, which, like
> > common literacy, is regarded as essential
> > to an environmentally healthy, democratic
> > society.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as 0.0%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
> no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
> you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/914/0/_/444287/_/951686063/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as 0.0%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/914/2/_/444287/_/951767000/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 18:56:54 PDT