Re: email etiquette | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Doug Huston (huston![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:33:32 -0800 (PST) |
In our community of 13 households on 1.3 acres it is not a significant hardship to talked to another person face-to-face or on the phone. We have some general agreement that if an e-mail is particularly emotionally-laden - don’t send it. Our experience is that our e-mail discussions/debates/arguments get confused and misread more quickly and easily via the e-mail format than in person. We recognize this places a higher value on a certain type of communication. Nothing is perfect. And there is our experience that things have at times been sent via e-mail that wouldn’t have been said in person, and we’ve made the judgment call that thus it would have been better not to have sent it. We use e-mail a lot and generally keep it to information-sharing, but not solely. - Doug Huston (Ashland Cohousing Community - Oregon) On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Malcolm Eva <malcolm [at] malcolmeva.plus.com> wrote: > > Very good point, and one which has generated its own email. My view is that > I want to put my side of the discussion to everyone, and email is the only > way to do that in a community of 35 households. If I can't make a meeting I > don't have a vote (sorry, I know that's the wrong term for a consensus > meeting but...) but at least I can have a say. Others say that they don't > want to deal with email discussion, and just want the issues talked about at > the meeting, which, I maintain, disempowers me. At the moment our protocol > is to announce all the items in advance on email so people can comment and > exchange views before the meeting. The more controversial the topic, the > longer the discussion time needed. As many people don't come to residents' > meetings for various reasons at least they can see and assess the differing > views on the topic and join in when they want. What this often results in > are heated emails, and a calm meeting that everyone enjoys, usually with a > consensus at > the end. Not always, of course, but often. > > Back to individualism v altruism - if anyone has strong reactions to e.g. > Green paint, that's valid to say eeuch! To say "green paint is wrong and we > should not consider it" is different, and making a personal view sound like a > moral judgement. I think that's the sort of distinction the phrase is > getting at. > > Malcolm > > Sent from my iPad > If reply needed, please address to malcolm [at] m-eva.co.uk > >
- "Good of the Community" [was email etiquette, (continued)
- "Good of the Community" [was email etiquette Sharon Villines, February 25 2014
- Re: "Good of the Community" [was email etiquette Moz, February 25 2014
- Re: "Good of the Community" [was email etiquette Don Benson, February 26 2014
- Re: email etiquette Malcolm Eva, February 24 2014
- Re: email etiquette Doug Huston, February 24 2014
- Re: email etiquette Diana Carroll, February 24 2014
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.