AW: [ICANN-EU] MEMO requesting discussion: Structuring a large ML

[SchultzKom@t-online.de (Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung)]

Hi, Adrian and all other members who are interested in a more efficient
work,

I totally agree that we should build up two ML. One for information and
sum-ups, one for discussing. Because some surely don`t want to read hundreds
of emails but nevertheless want to be informed most will order information
from the information-ML who should be moderated.
What´s necessary too that there is no restriction to any member which ML
he/she will choose.I am convinced that when we are out of our present
campaign there will be a more quiet discussion and more need for relatively
short information.


With kindly regards

Christian Schultz

RA, StD.a.D., Kommunalberatung
58097 Hagen, Kammannstr. 18
Tel.: 02331 - 843407, Fax: 02331 - 843408
SchultzKom@t-online.de


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de [mailto:owner-icann-europe@fitug.de]Im
Auftrag von Adrian Suter
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. August 2000 01:23
An: icann-europe@fitug.de
Betreff: Re: [ICANN-EU] MEMO requesting discussion: Structuring a large
ML


At 00:53 20.08.00 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:

>SELF-ORGANIZATION AND READABILITY
>OF A LARGE MESSAGE LIST
>
>By Constantine Chassapis <cschassapis@acm.org>
>
>Version 0.1 of August 19, 2000;
>Submitted to icann-europe@fitug.de ML.
>
>
>This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices
>for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and
>suggestions for improvements.

Above all, this is not true. This memo does not even specify a "current
practice", and I doubt very much about the "best".

[SUM-UP, COLLECTION etc.]

It just won't work.

If you want to make it work, you have to set up two mailing lists: one for
announcements (which would be: articles to start a thread, sum-ups and
collections) and one for discussions. The first ML should be moderated. The
second should be a subscriber of the first one, thus allowing people to
subscribe to only one of the two. If they see something on the
announcements-list, they can subscribe the discussion-list and follow that
particular thread. Others can always participate in discussions, and others
again might prefer to read only the sum-ups.

That system could work, but newsgroups might be much more approproiate for
such an approach.

Adrian