[discuss] Should the 1net discussion be split into two (or more) lists?

Tue Jan 21 09:28:53 UTC 2014

Perhaps we could break the discussion into two threads.  Discuss and 
Discuss Brazil.  One being more general and long-term, one more specific 
to Brazil, with the possibility of limited cross-posting to cover real 
overlap?
On 1/20/2014 6:49 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> +1 Peter
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Peter H. Hellmonds" <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote:
>>
>> George,
>>
>> thank you for your suggestion as obvious we have a lot of traffic on
>> this list. It reminds me of good old Usent newsgroups during heated times.
>>
>> However, IMHO this idea of splitting the list may not be such a good
>> idea after all.
>>
>> We could end up dividing discussions between representation and
>> technical issues, which may be intended by the way you describe the
>> setup. But this could also mean that one group decides to not get
>> involved to even see the arguments presented in the other sub-list.
>> However, I do see benefit for all to listen to both groups of arguments.
>> And if some topic would be relevant to both sub-lists, we might end up
>> with twice the mails if people on both sub-lists would decide to
>> cross-post, as has happened with other external lists.
>>
>> Keeping the amount of traffic as high as it is right now might
>> discourage some from following the discussions on this list, but Avri
>> has pointed out a possible solution, i.e. that one could simply use a
>> filter to throw certain messages into a bit-bucket (e.g. folder:
>> discuss-read-later) based on some keywords.
>>
>> May I further suggest that we all do *not* simply hit the "Reply to all
>> plus list" button without consideration, but make sure to put in a
>> marker into the beginning of the subject line that reflects the topic
>> area, e.g. "MS REP: how to chose reps from various multi-stakeholder
>> groups" and "IG TECH: IPv6 and privacy considerations". If we would have
>> some discipline and guidance from a list care-taker (to avoid the term
>> moderator), we might get along just fine. (ok, agreed, that is a big
>> *IF* :-) )
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. (I'll happily go along if the majority decides to split.)
>>
>> -- Peter
>>
>>> On 19/01/2014 16:07, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> So I propose considering
>>> to split this list into two lists:
>>>
>>> *_1net-representation_* will be devoted to issues of representation that
>>> concern us.  It should be oriented toward the makeup of 1net and other
>>> groups that claim to focus on Internet governance issues.
>> [...]
>>> *_1-net solutions_* will be devoted to the issues in Internet governance
>>> that concern us.  It should be oriented to problem statements,
>>> descriptions of possible solutions, technical assessments, and
>>> implications of proposed modifications in the structure and distribution
>>> of responsibilities within the Internet administrative and technical
>>> ecosystem.
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter H. Hellmonds
>> <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
>> OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>> <0xCF1DCE0F.asc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss