[Sighci-l] Live or let die?

[Jody Condit Fagan]

I think this is not just a problem faced by SIG HCI.

The dilemma is that if a SIG has energy and involvement, that draws others 
in - but if it has no energy/involvement, no one wants to participate.

 From what I've seen, SIGS can pretty much decide what they want their role 
to be: they can be solely a group to propose programs - and they propose a 
LOT of them - they can be a group where ideas are bandied about on a 
listserv, solicit experitse for projects or publications, or a combination 
of such activities.  I think that freedom is also a reason for the 
'nebulosity' of what a SIG is.

In other words, running a SIG might feel more manageable if there were 
defined goals that the group was supposed to accomplish (perhaps set by the 
Chair in consultation with members).

I think the area of HCI is worthy of its own SIG, but it probably IS 
overlapping with USE.... if USE is proposing the programs that HCI would, 
then perhaps it is ok to let HCI go.  Otherwise, rise up!

Jody



At 02:21 PM 12/3/02 -0800, Andrew Dillon wrote:
>So, I have to ask the
>members,  what do we want here? If we cannot answer this, then this group
>is, in my view, defunct. I hope it is not so, and cannot help but think that
>ASIST without an HCI group would be a poorer society but the evidence of the
>last year makes me wonder how we might consider it otherwise. Is there
>really room for an HCI sig anymore? I'd love to hear some voices.....