Alan Gouin,
> Most the members of this list who participated in these discussions in the
> past seem to have opted out. Perhaps some of you are still lurkers. If you
> have some ideas about new lists, you can contact me directly if you wish
> at:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks.
> Alan Scharf
The best kind of discussion list is between the extremes of:
1. Unmoderated and inclusive with too many branches.
Good: diverse, open, fair
Bad: no one can read all the messages. Includes garbage and
insults.
2. Moderated and exclusive with a narrow focus.
Good: for refining understanding/expression. Focused and deep.
Bad For sharing info. Tends to be inbred and blind to other
views.
The best quantity of discussion groups is between the extremes of:
1. Too many small discussions groups will create compartments that slows
the spread of ideas. Think-tanks do that on purpose, but we wish to
communicate. Unintensional self-censorship due to isolation and a
lack of inclusive attitudes.
2. Too few groups will force diverse interests to find each other in a
crowd with few common interests.
I subscribe to moderated Ecol-Econ and unmoderated futurework. I find it
worth sifting through futurework for the jems. With Ecol-Econ there is
no garbage, but the diversity is is somewhat lacking since the
subscribers more of one mind and focus on a few subjects at a time.
How can we choose? Could we have one big group with organized threads?
How is that different from many small groups with single subjects if
all the groups are available? When we look at a group we are blind to
external threads. So, I tend to favor that we seek to have a few
unmoderated groups, like futurework, with improved improved threading
systems. I would like to avoid splitting into too many groups and to
focus on making the groups/systems we have better.
Barry
