[LINK] Maintaining the link list

[Greg Taylor]

As a long-time linker, but mostly lurker, I am happy to support the 
proposed administrative team, but calling it a "board" is over the top. 
It's only a self-subscribe mailing list, folks. It's not an 
organisation, so let's take a reality check.

It's certainly helpful if a  mailing list has more than one 
administrator, but there's not an awful lot to actually do. And I say 
that from extensive experience in administering Mailman lists, large and 
small.

But maybe it's time to take a step back and consider whether another 
format might be a better alternative. List email can get quite messy 
when reply hierarchies are embedded ad infinitum.

Why not move to an online discussion forum?

Pros:
- email addresses are not exposed
- only subject postings of interest need to be downloaded by each subscriber
- RSS feeds are available for those with the need for immediate 
notification of new messages
- forum software is now quite sophisticated and easy to install, 
maintain and administer
- topic categorisation is enforced
- posting blunders can be easily corrected.

Cons
- more public (although since the link list is currently archived 
online, this is a moot point)
- may attract spammers (but there are ways to manage this)
- usually needs a LAMP hosting service, but these are now cheap, 
reliable and accessible. Maybe ANU can provide the service anyway. It's 
easy enough to set up.

No doubt there will be opposition to such a radical suggestion, but 
let's discuss it.

Greg


On 2011/02/19 10:10 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 10:10 +1100 19/2/11, Ash Nallawalla wrote:
>> All in favour, say Aye:
>>
>> Martin Barry
>> Robin Whittle
>> Ivan Trundle
> Speaking as a greybeard, longstanding linker and occasional member of
> list-admin teams, I like the direction we're going in, know at least
> the digital personae who are proposed, and like the mix.
>
> (I guess that's an 'Aye', but with a right of recall in case any
> further interesting ideas emerge later).
>
>
> A question:
>
> Are the statement of scope, and the modus operandi, still good?
>
> If not, is new-broom time an appropriate stage to reconsider them?
>
>
> I always depict link as being 'a community of Internet
> policy-watchers'.  (That said, every time I ask a dumb technical
> question I get lots of valuable technical advice;  so we have a
> highly valuable interleave between policy-oriented people and
> technical people with policy interests).
>
>
> What the site actually says is:
>
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
> "The Link list is an email discussion list for people interested in
> the development of the internet in Australia although its strays from
> time to time into wider issues of communication.
>
> "Areas of interest vary from time to time but the following topics
> have been of interest -   ...
>
> " ... open and unmoderated. Only list members may post to the list.  ...
>
> "... archived ..."
>
>
> That still sounds pretty good.  Maybe we should leave well alone.
>
>