[p2p-research] Again on mailing lists, was: Post-Depression first: Americans get more money from government than they give back | csmonitor.com
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 23:33:09 CET 2009
Hi Miche and Marco,
We have 123 members. We had 93 when I started, I think. Haven't noted a
lot leave, but some do. Hard being prolific and popular. I'm more than
happy to include other admins but Kevin does 70% of the base admin and try,
with Michel, to keep the content flowing. I've been told by a few that
there is too much. Others send me notes appreciative of the links and
timely coverage of diverse but interesting stuff. Hard to please all.
Always open to suggestions, changes or replacement. We mean well...I think
it has been a little over a year Kevin and I have been at this...if someone
else wants a turn trying to do the dance, I'm happy to be more a lurker.
The duties, in my opinion, entail being willing to say things...responding
when you aren't sure, and ruthless willingness to kindly remind people to be
essentially courteous...which takes an element of hubris and
self-righteousness at once. Other than that, pretty easy.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Ryan, Kevin,
> could we have some numbers on subscribers etc...
> are we doing so badly as Marco suggests ...?
> I'm myself on quite a few mailing lists ... and this is one of the best I'm
> on in terms of consistently interesting information and debate on issues
> that I care about ... I see only a difference between personally moderated
> list, such as IDC, and free flowing, such as ours ...
> People who want to improve should give the example and add actions to their
> words, so, let's start with improving one simple rule, and let's go from
> there ...
> The onus is on those who complain and want to change, not on those who are
> happy with the present situation
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net>wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 08:20:10 AM -0500, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>> > On 11/26/09, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
>> > The day this list will enforce the same netiquette applied, without
>> > any effort, in almost other mailing lists around, many more
>> > subscribers will regularly engage in conversations. Right now, 90%
>> > of traffic here is a uselessly verbose flow of unreadable, messed up
>> > text.
>> > Give us an idea of what a working model would look like (that is,
>> > another list or process that works better)...I am all for standards
>> > and improvement.
>> > ...
>> > Is P2P always to be an isolated half-baked low tech set of wires and
>> > gizmos only understandable by the tinkerer?
>> > ...
>> > Publish standards. Propose new tools. Guide us in our errant ways.
>> please step down from the pulpit and stop being ridiculous. I'm very
>> sorry, I understand that this sounds hard, but I really don't know
>> what else I could write. YOU complained that it seems as nobody is
>> listening to what you and Paul (IIRC) are saying. I only explained
>> what is SURELY one of the reason why this happens on this list.
>> I don't have to publish anything or propose anything new. Standard
>> mailing list netiquette has been the same for decades now, it's
>> published all over the net for everybody who cares, is extremely
>> simple, million people who are anything but "tinkerers" use it
>> everyday without problems and *remains* the only way to make
>> conversations on mailing lists open and readable to the highest
>> possible number of people.
>> If mailing lists as such are a thing of the past, that's perfectly OK
>> (seriously!!!), YOU find a better tool and convince others to move
>> using it. But AS LONG as the channel you are on is a mailing list, you
>> have to:
>> - accept the fact that an OLD CHANNEL works much better with ITS OWN old,
>> well established, universally known, very simple rules (**), or...
>> - don't be surprised or sad if almost nobody else bothers opening your
>> In other words, if you feel above the limits inherent in mailing
>> lists, don't use them, but ignoring them would be foolish as long as
>> what you're on IS a mailing list. So let's close this list for good,
>> or don't feel sorry if it remains little more than a private chatroom
>> with a publicly viewable log.
>> > As for Gmail, I appreciate the arguments that it is not "free."
>> ??? My argument was **only** that Gmail is not P2P: it is a
>> single-point-of-failure, ultra-centralized service, that is the very
>> opposite of the models usually advertised here. The software license,
>> ToS, etc... have nothing to do with that.
>> (**) Private conversations via email are an entirely different issue,
>> of course. The problems of ignoring netiquette become much more
>> bearable in that other context.
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch