On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dan Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 06:12:12PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Adam Moskowitz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Allan Irving wrote: >> >> How do we feel about trailing Slack instead of discussion lists? >> > >> > While email may not be perfect, and it doesn't offer many of the >> > features found in tools such as Slack or Google Plus or Twitter, it has >> > two big advantages: First, everyone uses email, so no matter how many >> > forums you participate in, messages appear right there in a tool you >> > already go to multiple times per day. The alternative is to learn a half >> > dozen different interfaces, with what seems like a new one every year. >> > Second, email is pretty much the only not-real-time communication >> > mechanism that lets each user pick his or her own interface. I like >> > mutt, he likes Google Mail, she likes the Apple Mac mail client, some >> > other guy likes Thunderbird, and one person I know still uses a weird >> > emacs mail client -- but it's all the same messages. Sure, sites like >> > Twitter publish their APIs, but there are still many more email clients >> > than there are clients for any particular forum tool. >> >> Minor correction: Multiple NNTP clients appear to be available for most >> operating systems and I would suggest that the best ones are actually >> better at handling multiple threaded conversations than many (most?) >> email clients. The only real problem that I would see is how to set >> things up so that the groups didn't "leak" into the general USENET system >> and become easily accessible to the population who live there. > > That's easy. Run separate servers, and if you share the groups, require > members of your NNTP trust circle to do the same. There are several > historical and extant examples. > > It's not clear to me that you would want to do so, rather than > make it a public group and ask gwene to gateway it for people > who want web/archive access.
Usually LOPSA groups have a pretty good signal/noise ratio. My concern would be that unmoderated, publicly distributed newsgroups which were bidirectionally gatewayed to the mailing lists would be subject to the "Eternal September" problem. As simply a way to access the archive (or participate in a readonly) mode, it might be useful. Alternatively. making it a moderated, public newsgroup on the USENET side would alleviate my concerns. But that would require someone to be a more active moderator then I think we currently have. In the old days, it might have boosted LOPSA's visibility among younger demographics; but I have no idea if it would matter today. I'm really not sure if NNTP based newsgroups would be a good fit for LOPSA's needs or not. I just wanted to point out that there are other technologies that, although tainted by how they have been sometmes used, may still have advantages. If it wouldn't boost LOPSA's visibility, I'm not sure the advantages would outweigh the effort. Bill Bogstad > > -dsr- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
