>I recognize this as mildly polemic. Your position may have been defensible
>in the Arpanet and early Internet days, but not today. Today we have lots
>of mailing list members who pay for access to our 'Net.
Agreed - but they aren't my customers. They may be paying someone
else to get into the same general location as my service, but they
are NOT my paying customers. There is no distinction in my mind
between compuserve.com, aol.com, flamtap.lex.ky.us, saarbrucken.de,
and ncsc.mil; they're all the same thing to my list.
>We're also talking about an orientation towards service, and, yes plain
>courtesy. I know you've seen the (fortunately) occasional arrogance that
>some self-styled experts dump upon the neophyte. This must end.
Agreed - the carrot wins more often than the stick. However, one must
yet wield both, no?
>> But that one "customer" has just ticked off thousands of other
>> "customers". So which "customer" do we adapt to? The one who sent
>> the message, or the hundreds whining about it?
>Simple. To which customer do we adapt? All of them.
I don't know of too many services which cater to every whim/need of every
customer with any success *or* longevity. "Adapting" to 5000 subscribers
gives me nightmares - this is a hobby/contribution for me, not a business.
>Until the processes deal with all the needs of the service providers
>and their consumer/customer, the processes are flawed.
Hmm...it seems to me that, if the processes ever managed to "deal
with" all the needs of the providers and customers, there would be
no need for new processes.
>we cannot solve the problem given today's software or technology in
>no way prevents us from recognizing the flaws in the processes.
In the interest of providing the best service to the largest number
of "customers," I may require *all* customers to follow a certain
procedure. I see little fault with this, in *any* business environ-
ment; why should we avoid it here?