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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

We'll have to agree to disagree I think.

The reality? I'm really only skimming the odd message from people I know well now. The volume, and the amount of material that isn't relevant to me but which is interleaved throughout threads with subjects that don't match the content, means I just have to put my time to other uses.

I know there are others who feel the same. So, you may find that this list becomes exactly the echo chamber you fear from splitting the convo up.

On 19 Jan 2014, at 18:10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> I feel your pain, Nick, but fragmenting these lists has its own problems, most of which are worse than dealing with high volume and cross-posting. 
> 
> First, people tend to gravitate to different lists according to their own political and stakeholder status, which means that the cross-community dialogue is severely attenuated. Second, each list develops its own political equilibrium and any attempt to bring the different views together involves a bunch of additional discourse and work which will duplicate - and often frustrate - the work done by the subgroups. I don't think the 1net list is suffienctly problematic to even begin to think about fragmenting it. Perhaps once we have a more well-established coordinating committee and modus operandi, then and only then we can consider delegating tasks to subgroups. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/523004c5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/523004c5/signature.asc>