[ncc-charter] Re: Additional NCC lists

From: Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:51:51 PDT

  • Next message: Adam Peake: "Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter"

    >I have no objection to task-specific lists. We have had them before, in
    >fact. They are active and effective only insofar as a particular activist
    >leads them. And they tend to go into a state of suspended animation after a
    >while, not quite alive, not really dead.

    Just like the main discuss list. A subject flares then dies. What we do
    know is that discussion on the main list produces nothing/very little. Just
    drives a few people to delete mail as it comes in, ignore mail from the
    list, or unsubscribe.

    >I don't want newcomers to NCC to be confronted with 15 possible lists and
    >not know where the real action is.

    15 lists? How about 4 or 5 maximum at any one time, there isn't interest
    for more (and Adcom shouldn't create more than 4 or 5.) I believe they
    should be Adcom created, responding either to a request from a group of
    members or moving a heavy thread off the main list. UDRP list example of
    the first, moving the Love/Crocker, etc. discussion of trademarks to a
    sub-list and example of the second.

    The new web site will tell people about any lists. A link off the front
    page to "constituency working group lists" ? On that next page would be a
    description of the purpose of each list, how to sign up, etc.

    Working web site = cure all.

    >So creation of these alternate lists imposes administrative duties: whoever
    >maintains the web site must constantly update the list of lists, remove old
    >ones, etc. And we must have procedures for informing people that as
    >newcomers they should join the main list, and then give them opportunities
    >to scan the archives of other lists to see if they are interested.

    You're making it too big a deal of this. The person who maintains the site
    doesn't have to touch content, they just(!) give passwords to the Adcom and
    a few trusted volunteers.
    We already have procedures for telling people how to join the lists we
    have. Keeping them on those lists is the problem. Newcomers can read
    descriptions on the web site. I would leave the archives of issue specific
    lists private, just let people get on with their discussion and produce
    something to be presented to the main list as a resolution or whatever



    >m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
    >syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
    >visit the convergence center! http://dcc.syr.edu/home.htm

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:55:13 PDT