Brian Carroll wrote:
Brian, I don't see why people have to unsubscribe from the Design-L. Howard Ray Lawrence was a little concerned about this as well. The relation between an unmoderated Design-L and a moderated one is not resolved, and still is open to a patient discussion.
Attached below is an extract from my conversation with Howard today morning... besides what I said there, I also think the Design-L location at PSU gives it a strong sense of place, there are strengths built over some years which may not have to be surrendered.
I think there are opportunities which should eventually be considered by all list members (and perhaps put to vote).
Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anand:
>
> In regard to your earlier comments, note the name of this new list,
> design-l.v2.
>
> Also, note that many of the current/former subscribers to Design List
> have been invited to join.
>
> Your views. . .?
>
> Howard
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
<snip>
I would have called it something else, or at least "Design-L (Unmoderated)" if the association to Design-L was important, and then used this logic:
up to 2005: One Design-L
after 2005: two forks to Design-L
fork 1: Moderated, the original list
fork 2: Unmoderated, experimental
with a condition that the unmoderated list is used
by a small group of people to test ideas, make comments which
might sound offensive, put-up half considered hypothesis etc.;
with an understanding that once ideas **mature** they would
be submitted to the moderated list (and a larger audience)
so the moderated list works as a peer reviewed list.
[personal note edited]
I would have used the disagreement to create a system with better-quality ideas.
</snip>
1) To UNsubscribe from Design-L, moderated by Howard Ray
Lawrence of PSU and akin a USENET feed, send a message to:
e-mail: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
body: unsubscribe design-l
Brian, I don't see why people have to unsubscribe from the Design-L. Howard Ray Lawrence was a little concerned about this as well. The relation between an unmoderated Design-L and a moderated one is not resolved, and still is open to a patient discussion.
Attached below is an extract from my conversation with Howard today morning... besides what I said there, I also think the Design-L location at PSU gives it a strong sense of place, there are strengths built over some years which may not have to be surrendered.
I think there are opportunities which should eventually be considered by all list members (and perhaps put to vote).
Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anand:
>
> In regard to your earlier comments, note the name of this new list,
> design-l.v2.
>
> Also, note that many of the current/former subscribers to Design List
> have been invited to join.
>
> Your views. . .?
>
> Howard
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
<snip>
I would have called it something else, or at least "Design-L (Unmoderated)" if the association to Design-L was important, and then used this logic:
up to 2005: One Design-L
after 2005: two forks to Design-L
fork 1: Moderated, the original list
fork 2: Unmoderated, experimental
with a condition that the unmoderated list is used
by a small group of people to test ideas, make comments which
might sound offensive, put-up half considered hypothesis etc.;
with an understanding that once ideas **mature** they would
be submitted to the moderated list (and a larger audience)
so the moderated list works as a peer reviewed list.
[personal note edited]
I would have used the disagreement to create a system with better-quality ideas.
</snip>