[OPE-L:6940] [OPE-L:432] stagnation

Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:50:28 -0500 (EST)

* In December, there were 53 posts.

* In January, there were 21 posts.

* So far in February (including this post), there have been 7 posts.

While December and January have been traditionally slow for this list (due
to the holidays, breaks in academic schedules, conferences, etc.), this
season they were unusually slow.

Our volume lately would be slow for just about any list. However, in our
group -- which has been for most of our history a *very* high volume
list -- this stagnation should give us cause for concern.

I have been purposely laying low in the belief that you were able to raise
issues for discussion without my prompting. We are, after all, supposed to
be a collaborative undertaking and the agenda and postings shouldn't be
driven by any one member.

Now, however, I think it's time for action.

We have several options:

1) re-ignite discussion. E.g. do you have a paper or issue that you think
is important for us to discuss? If so, now would be a good time.

2) make some changes to OPE-L. E.g. add some new members (the downside to
that might be an increase in volume *beyond* what we had when we were
previously high volume). Or, e.g. we could organize a seminar around some
specific topic that listmembers are interested in (perhaps we could even
invite some who are not on OPE-L to participate [only] for the duration of
the seminar). Or, maybe you have some other suggestions?

3) Thank everyone for participating, congratulate each other, recognize
that we have had one of the best forms on Marxist political economy
*ever*, and then shut the list down.

Obviously, 1+2 are preferable to 3. But, if we can't do 1 and/or 2, then
we should seriously consider doing 3.

What do you think?

In solidarity, Jerry