Comments on Adoption
Many of the recent posts have commented on adoption. Here is my 2 cents.
The comments on adoption seem to have been made on an unchallenged assumption that adoption is a good thing.
I'd ask this question: why have adoption at all? That is, when the ringmaster of a webring abandons a webring, why not let it die?
(Note that, for this discussion, I'm expressly treating abandonment different to an overt attempt to terminate/delete the webring.)
Why not let it die?
The reason I can see is that the MEMBERS of the webring have invested some in belonging to the webring and might wish to preserve their investment.
Of course, this investment is substantially less than the old days when actual navigation had to be added to a page for each and every membership. But even so, there is that rationale.
Besides the MEMBERS wishing to continue the webring, what possible reason is there for not letting the webring just die?
I raise this point because, for me, it points to the answer to the adoption question.
For me, the ONLY rationale for adoption is to enable the MEMBERS to preserve their membership in a webring which has become abandoned.
For me, the ONLY people that it makes sense to offer the webring to are the members. If none of the members want it enough to take it ... let it die.
That raises the question of "which member"?
How about the one who owns the fewest webrings (of those who respond)?
Maybe even the member who doesn't own ANY, who might find adopting one a way to get started ... to step into one that is already operational as a way to learn.
James S. Huggins
to contact me: