On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 21:46:44 alex kot wrote: > Great idea Torrie, I think this is very needed. You also think adding > policy or wiki-updates as a topic?
I did think about a policy@ list, but I honestly think that discuss@ is the best place for it, since discuss@ would essentially be a superset of discussion about SYNHAK and has the widest reach of subscribers. If policy needs discussed, what easier way to involve everyone affected (i.e. the entire community). > > > > On Thursday, November 28, 2013 12:36 AM, Torrie Fischer > <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net> wrote: > > Yes I'm digging up this thread. > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 15:52:35 Chris Egeland wrote: > > Hey hackers! > > > > I've been watching the mailing lists very closely for some time now, and > > have noticed a general uptrend in the volume of email sent to the > > discuss list. Sometimes we get offtopic and go off on tangents about > > toast, or other topics which are fun to talk about, but are ultimately > > irrelevant to the space itself. Usually, this isn't a problem, but for > > someone who is interested in the space, but not the minutiae of every > > little bit of day-to-day operations, it can quickly turn into an > > overwhelming amount of email. > > > > Today, I'm asking for input on how we should proceed with the mailing > > lists. As you may know, we currently have 5 lists, two of which are > > public, one semipublic, and two private. discuss@synhak.org and > > annou...@synhak.org are the two that everyone knows about. Members may > > know that they are automatically subscribed to memb...@synhak.org. > > Board members are subscribed to bo...@synhak.org and us sysadmin folk > > are members of sysad...@synhak.org. > > > > My recommendation is to create an "offtopic" list, which would have very > > very lax rules on what can be posted. Anything you want to chat about. > > Want to debate why the RubberDucks is a terrible team name and the Aeros > > was WAY better? Sure, no problem. Got a pothole on Market street that > > irks you every day? Have at it. Joke threads? Toast? No problem. The > > other side to this idea is that the discuss list would have some basic > > rules imposed that mean that any topics to the discuss list would be > > required to be relevant to the space itself. Projects occurring at the > > space would be relevant topics, open hours discussion, meeting minutes, > > etc. > How about instead of a catch-all off-topic list, some more specialized > lists? Almost every time I send a rapid-fire set of emails, I do wonder > about the people who were previously complaining about the very high volume > of e-mails. This isn't about off-topicness, but more about "what is > on-topic for discuss@". General purpose discussion sounds pretty neat, but > then I wonder what effects having more focused discussion groups would have > on giving incentive to people to discuss more. > > I've been wondering if it would benefit the space at all to create a couple > of smaller lists for people involved in certain standing projects at the > space, mostly according to the Maintainers[1] page. Namely, > > * Expanding access to sysadmin@ to the public, redirecting services@ to a > new security@ list, and writing down the ad-hoc policy we've been using to > give people access to security tokens > * A speakers-bureau@ list for better coordination of the bureau > * little-aristotles@ for planing that > * startup-akron@ if you're interested in helping Nick and I get a startup > environment up off the ground in Akron. > > Expanding access to sysadmin@ should benefit the space by allowing > interested persons to sign up for it and tune in to more rapid discussions > about networking or servers that most people really couldn't care less > about. Same for the other lists. In addition, they'd give a better idea of > who are the real maintainers of things. Someone sends a question to the > speakers-bureau list and you'll hear back from someone with a vested > interest as opposed to any yahoo signed up on discuss@. > > Creating a little-aristotles list would also enable that group to include > external organizations that *really* could care less about discussions and > meeting minutes. > > In essence, this would transform the SYNHAK mailing lists from a SYNHAK- > centric discussion tool into a venerable hub of many discussions for the > greater Akron Hacker community. I think this is needed. > > Your thoughts and feedback are appreciated. > > > So, let me know what you guys think. I'm not officially proposing this, > > but we may chat about it at the next meeting as a discussion topic, > > because it would fundamentally mean we change how the mailing lists are > > organized and structured. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > [1]http://synhak.org/wiki/Maintainers > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
