> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 08:59:31 -0600
> From: "Loren Miller" <loren_at_ioxy.com>
> Subject: eGroups/Egroups
> I don't like the position I seem to be getting myself in, in which I
> to be in favor of destroying the old flavor of the glorantha digest. But
> that isn't my intention, and I think that egroups under yahoo is a pretty
> good option. Here's why...
> Third, I don't think the format of the glorantha digest is what ensures
> character. I think it's the posters to the digest, with all their
> inventiveness and foibles.
You may well be right. This is a difference between origin and status quo. I'm convinced that my decision at the time (early 1993) to make the list available as a digest only was critical in stimulating in-depth discussion and reducing flames and noise.
It is probably correct to assume that not much will change at first when people get the choice to receive individual messages. I fear however, that the list *will* change when a significant number of members receive and respond to mails with a smaller round-trip time. Instant gratification is a strong amplifier for human behaviour.
But having said that change is inevitable, the question remains whether the change would be for good or bad - that's for the members of the list to decide - and don't pay too much attention to me - my opinion never made much of a difference...
> I used to think the format ensured its character,
> back when I took over list-owner status from Henk, and that's why it was a
> digest-only list then, but I no longer think so. Nowadays, I tend to agree
> with Alex Ferguson, that a digest of messages makes it harder to find the
> content you want amid a plethora of topics, and obviously it makes it much
> harder to use threaded mail reading software or to keep consistent subject
> lines across a discussion.
This is very true... It's always been hard to keep track of single treads. This
forced people to spend extra effort when responding.
> Sixth, I've run the glorantha digest as a majordomo list for four years.
> the only person other than Eric Rowe who has. I'm a reasonably competent
> sysadmin and perl hacker. And it took no less than 10 hours a week to run
> through all the list owner messages, bounces, make sure that unsubs and
> mis-addressed email went through, and so on. On the average, there were
> 100 administrative messages a day. Egroups mailing lists are much less
> intensive. Bouncing email addresses are visible on a webpage, can be
> unsubbed with the click of a checkbox, and do not dump huge amounts of
> email into the inbox.
I never had that much administrative traffic, but at the end I found it hard to
continue to do this on my employer's equipment and during office hours. List administration will take significant time, I just happened to be able to
create my own tools. I learned a lot during that time, about technology and human nature both.
> Tenth, Egroups will allow us to have multiple moderators of the group, and
> for the group to continue without needing to be moved to another server if
> and when the current owner and moderator(s) can no longer afford the time
> taken on the list.
I haven't yet seen any means of changing ownership of an egroup. Can you tell me how?
> Eleventh, we might need to recreate the mailing list if eGroups went out
> business or changed its business plan. I don't see that as any more of an
> issue than what we've done already, a few times, when Andrew Bell handed
> list to Henk Langeveld, when Henk handed it to me, or when I handed it to
> Eric Rowe.
It would be a good thing to let the moderators backup the list off-line.
garantuee for continuity is to spread the data.
I never could do what Andrew Bell had done, which was editing an e-zine. I took the spark, and passed it on...
"Change it inevitable. Even Change must change itself. Which in turn will lead
to ever increasing levels of complexity. This is what we name evolution."
Powered by hypermail