Some quick things I wanted to throw in here: 1. First, It has come to my attention that some of the hardworking Conference Committee folks feel a bit "thrown under the bus" by these conversations. I wanted to say I feel lousy about this. One problem of striking while the iron is hot is that sometimes people feel burned by what transpires. This can especially be the case when those people are also feeling burned out--and who wouldn't feel burned out after 123678924 million conference submissions? I promise--and I hope anyone who has participated in these threads will do the same--not to talk here and privately, and then flake out when it's time to try and make things right. Personally, I have a bunch of ideas about how I can help, with submission guidelines, reviewer training, and maybe as part of a "critical and cultural theory" track, if we start to track. I promise to make good on my bitching and moaning by being more of a team player to make things right. I encourage others to do the same, here and now, in writing, so the Exec knows who to hunt down, after the smoke clears from these talks. 2. Re: the discussion Nicole raised about "straight" research: Because I know you follow my personal life (don't even front), I will remind that Nicole is a dear friend and a colleague whose work I admire and cite constantly. She values what I do, and I value what she does, and sometimes, we even do the same things! One more time: what I am trying to suss is not whether 'straight' or experimental/theoretical work is better stuff, but whether AoIR can hold both dear in practice. We all talk a big game about the interdisciplinary life, but if we are going back to the same old same old when the rubber meets the road, that's something people have a right to know. 3. Re: Barry's comment about doctoral candidates and quality: SHAME ON YOU for writing so dismissively about our strongest organizational component. You know how much you've influenced me as an intellectual and how I love you as a human being, but man, sometimes you miss the boat. To wit: You say, "Everyone is not Terri Senft," which appeals to my supermodel nature so thanks, but you don't get that as an intellectual I didn't start this way. It was raw, sheer luck that Andrew Herman and Tom Swiss grabbed me to contribute AS A GRAD STUDENT to a conference ( later a book) that for all intents and purposes, began this organization. You know what the conference's name was? THE WEB: MYTH, METAPHOR, MAGIC.How's that for hippy dippy? You want the next round of Terri Senfts? You need to GROW THEM. And it starts with things like conferences. I think getting some shady, half baked submissions is worth it. Others don't. I get it. Just want to know if it's time for me, and others like me, to move on--no harm, no foul. 3. I love Joseph's idea about an Announce list and a Discuss list. In the most informal poll ever among Twitter users, it seems lots of them won't discuss stuff in email format because they fear 'cluttering' the list (among other concerns.) An Announce list would keep people tangentially interested in Internet Studies up to date, and a Discuss list might better foster longer um, discussions. I think that's enough from me. Fondly--no really! T Because I know you follow my personal life (don't even front), I On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2011@reagle.org>wrote:

On 05/31/2013 12:33 PM, William Bain wrote:

...

from what's been said on this thread. However, in my humble, the cfp's and tecnho refs are great but I think the listserv is at its most dynamic when lots of opinions are being exchanged.

air-l certainly seems much more like a massive announce list than a discussion list presently, and hence I hesitate (including now) to violate this presumed focus. And this tends to be a self-perpetuating phenomenon.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have an announce and discuss list?

______________________________**_________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/** listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org<http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org>

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- <http://goog_689013053> <http://goog_689013053> Dr. Theresa M. Senft Global Liberal Studies Program School of Arts & Sciences New York University 726 Broadway NY NY 10003 home: *www.terrisenft.net <http://goog_689013053>** *(needs a serious updating) facebook: www.facebook.com/theresa.senft twitter: @terrisenft

Hi, It's my turn, apparently. I've been really enjoying this discussion, not least because some of my favorite thinking-people have been contributing, and I don't get to see those people IRL as much any more. My first EVER academic conference was AoIR in Toronto. I was a MASTER'S student and I felt completely out of my league. But people were really, really nice and good to me. Not just nice as in "remembering my name", but nice as in, "providing constructive criticism and treating me like a colleague". To me, that was the key difference between AoIR and other conferences - the collegiality. That collegiality also extended to the list, and to the interactions I had with AoIR folks outside of conferences. I haven't been able to make it to an AoIR conference in a couple of years, but I participated remotely in Terri's Kissing Booth in 2011 and last year I attempted to virtually "crash" the last AoIR banquet using Twitter. The lovely people who were so nice to me in 2003 perhaps appreciated that too; as a Master's student I didn't have enough money to go to the banquet and AoIR let me go anyway. Then they sat me with real live professors who I had hilarious conversations with. Ten years is a long time. It's enough time for edgy grad students to finish their studies and struggle through postdocs and finally find jobs, and it's enough time for technologies too to become institutionalized. The thing that was still "emerging" and "hybrid" and strange and weird and exciting (at least to academics) in 2003 is now the main infrastructure of commerce, government information, and vast parts of our everyday social interaction. This means that many more people want to study it, and makes conference organizing much more work because the conference has to negotiate with the broader institutionalization of 1. the phenomenon and 2. the scholarship of the phenomenon. That's hard to do, especially if you want to leave room for creative and edgy stuff, as well as leaving room to be really nice to people who are just getting their ideas and careers together. I'm in favour of retaining the "big tent" approach in conferences, on the list and in other venues. I think it represents what's best and most interesting about AoIR - the collegiality and open-mindedness. There are now dozens of other entities that are trying to get a piece of internet studies. I've been to the Web Science conferences. I'm now apparently part of a network of experts on Internet Science (!! My reflexive STS scholar-self finds this hilarious !!). These places are not doing what AoIR has been doing, although they are also contributing to attempts to make Internet Studies into a recognizable field. I'm not sure that's exactly what's required. We all know that the Internet is not one thing, and even if it were, it wouldn't stay that way. AoIR has been a place to be thoughtful about the messiness of this process, from a variety of perspectives. We still need to have places to explore the margins of technology/society interactions, even when there's pressure to form and defend a single centre. I'm sorry I won't see you in Denver. It's too far for this time. But if I have even the slightest opportunity, you'll find me squatting the Twitter feed, IM-ing in questions for the keynote speakers, or generally trying to be as productively disruptive as possible - on the internet. Alison. -- Dr Alison Powell Lecturer in Media and Communication London School of Economics Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE a.powell@lse.ac.uk Twitter: @a_b_powell