Re: TECHWR-L list management

Subject: Re: TECHWR-L list management
From: Iain Harrison <iharrison -at- SCT -dot- CO -dot- UK>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:51:05 GMT

Sanford talks about two models of list management, but overlooks
the fact that what is in dispute isn't that postings shouldn't be
relevant, but how to define relevance following Eric's definition.

What really worries me is the fact that according to the footer on
each message, there are over two and a half thousand readers of
this list. How many actively contribute? A tiny minority, it seems.

When people do post, they often seem to be worried about whether
their post is on or off topic, and it seems to me that the
discussions here are stilted because of that.

If there really are 2500 subscriber here, how about some of them
saying why they read but don't actively contribute? Are you happy
with your passive role, and content to get info this way, or do you
feel constrained by an unwelcoming atmosphere?

One ex-lurker who gave an opinion supporting what I'd written got
openly flamed for a clearly honest, if slightly impolite, posting.

I hope that hasn't put off any more posts form that member or from
others. Even if the post was out of order (I don't feel I should
comment on that), common courtesy would have allowed an honest
opinion and a first-time contribution from an ex-lurker.

Having inflamed much of this controversy, I have had one aggressive
and semi-literate email suggesting I go away, and many, many
private emails supporting my views. I'd like to thank those people
for their support.

Although I don't think that this is off-topic, as it is central to
how the list operates, I'll forebear to write more on it right now.

Iain


Previous by Author: Re[3]: acceptable error rates
Next by Author: Re: Procedural Steps
Previous by Thread: TECHWR-L list management
Next by Thread: Re: TECHWR-L list management


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads