On Flames and Mailing lists, and a bit about computers

From: Brett <danjo_at_xnet.com>
Date: Wed Mar 18 23:33:55 1998

On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Captain Napalm wrote:
> I'm surprised that it took so little time for this list to get to this
> point. Another list I'm on took about two years for it to reach critical
> mass before it exploded into three additional mailing lists, all covering
> the same topic (with the result of many hurt feelings, a list that only
> lasted about six months before it imploded, with the original list still
> going strong).

Was this right after Sam subscribed 8-)

> As I said to Sam in some private mail I sent to him:
>
> I'm not sure what can be done, but if the topic of a mailing list is
> held too tightly, eventually it'll die (like one of the mailing list
> I host now, although there are some other reasons for that as well)
> as there is little or nothing new being added.
>
> ...
>
> I don't want to seem overly pessimistic, and yes, perhaps the topics
> have drifted off a bit too much, but actions like yours (and I'm not
> trying to blame or pin anything on you, this is just my observations
> from about 5 years of being on several mailing lists (almost all of
> them high volume)) tend to do more harm over time than good, by
> splitting the community up, causing confusion, ill feelings and
> political overtones.

A very good breakdown. I especially liked (so will repeat 8-)

> splitting the community up, causing confusion, ill feelings and
> political overtones.

Sounds exactly like Sam - I don't want to look like I am picking only on
Sam (tho it is extremely hard - heck - impossible) I have to agree the
topics have lately gone pretty far off track BUT...

Isn't this OUR list? Bill runs it (supplies the resources) but as he
stated himself - he doesn't have time to baby sit us. Only one person
that I am aware of goes so far as to blame the subscribers if the list
wanders. Only one person goes immediately to gutter language when he has
to spend a little more time and read the headers, digest the fact the
thread is going nowhere, and then ignore the thread.

> And yet it continues (and Sam, in your reply to the above you appear sane
> and rational, yet your diatribes on the list show a completely different
> side, and one that isn't very flattering).

Well apparently you have never recieved the email I have from Sam!

> Bill may "own" the current list, but that still doesn't prevent anyone
> from starting up a new list dedicated to the same topic, only time and
> resources. And perhaps against my better judgment, I'm doing such a thing
> (Lord help me), and so let it be. If Sam feels that he can run a list
> better than Bill, or even I, then he is certainly free to start his own and
> see who signs up. Much like I am doing now.

If Sam gets to host/moderate/control the list - most of us are gone!
And I mean the backbone of the list - just read the replys to Sams little
triad.

> It's there. If no one subscribes and this list continues to flurish, so
> be it. If, on the other hand, my list takes off and this one dies, so be
> it. Currently, the only person subscribed is me. I'm not going to add
> people, it's up to you.
>
> To subscribe, send a message to classiccomp-request_at_lists.armigeron.com
> with a subject line of 'subscribe' (you might want to put this on the first
> line of the body as well). That's it. You'll then recieve a welcome
> message describing the rules and regulations of the list, as well as the
> unsubscribe rules. If you don't like the rules, we can talk, or you can
> walk.
>
> Simple, eh?
>
> -spc (We shall see ... )

I still reserve the 'final option'. I only hope Bill isn't too busy to
think of us.

BC
Received on Wed Mar 18 1998 - 23:33:55 GMT