Dear Arthur:
Thank you for forwarding the "E-Mail Etiquette" note -- it is a handy
summary of suggestions for the good of the list (this one and others),
many of which we may know but a useful reminder nevertheless.
You draw particular attention to suggestion #8:
>8. If you are unhappy with the direction of the list, start a thread on a subject
>that interests you (keeping in mind the constraints outlined in #8 above). The list
>will become what you make of it, nothing more, nothing less.<
I don't want to quibble, but there is an incomplete reference here on a
point that the authors of the summary think important, i.e. >(keeping in
mind the constraints outlined in #8 above).< To me, this seems to point
to another #8 in a different part of the document you are using as your
source (perhaps a FAQ or guide to the list). Can you please check your
document to find a point #8 that comes earlier and post it to this list
so we have an idea of what these constraints may be.
Still referring to this useful document, can you check point 7 in these
etiquette recommendations. I'll quote it here for convenience of fellow
list-readers:
>
7. As much as possible, stick to the topics of the list which have been
outline[d] in the welcome statement.<
I could be missing something, or forgetting something: where is the
mandate or list of topics for this (or these) future work lists? Some
of this seems evident by the mainstream of discussion, but the empirical
evidence of using this list suggests more of a diffuse, fuzzy approach
(perhaps a good thing, but often frustrating). If there is, in fact, a
formal statement (whether as a welcome statement, a FAQ, a mandate
statement, or whatever), can it be posted to the list as a matter of
course, at regular intervals (perhaps the first of each month). If not,
would it be a good idea to start an organized discussion of a list
mandate, central topics, etc., at least as a guide to posters? Perhaps,
in this case, the list conveners (Sally and Arthur, maybe others that I
am not aware of) could post something on what they thought, or now
think, the list was/is about and we could discuss this freely for some
period of time, and then try to draw things together in this kind of set
of guidelines. I am not trying to constrict the list, but to suggest
that some broad points re. focus might be useful.
Saul Silverman
