Hi Felix Thanks for this gesture. I'd like to comment on this, primarily in the context of the forthcoming radio discussion. If nettime does end as an active mailing list, then its archives will hold much of great value for future analysis, not least on a simple basis of gender and age and the increasing dominance of monologic postings over the past three years. Has anyone yet ventured to do breakdown of the gender of contributors? Not that this is everything but more importantly is there any data on how many follow up posts that new contributors make? Might we speculate on the extent that lack of follow up is prompted by lack of receptivity or responsiveness - or at worst, put-downs of what has been ventured? On even occasional reading of this list, it has become clear that some new voices have tentatively gestured towards contribution declaring themselves to be recent graduates and working in tech related contexts. On one occasion an enthusiastic new contributor was told not to read the books that the elder had read decades before and to look in other directions. I found this on one level quite ironic and on another tragic. The way its going nettime will end on a sour note, examining its own fossilising purpose and bemoaning the lack of valid intention inside its own loops. So it is not all about moderation and its lack or otherwise, but about a new consciousness emerging and you can't fake that. Structures, even networks don't last forever. If they can't transform they're doomed to stagnate. Or become (or stay) a club where the members know each other and celebrate or mourn the good old days.
B On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 09:51, Felix Stalder <fe...@openflows.com> wrote: > I would try to reverse the question. Not what are the costs (which are > hard to calculate anyway), but what are the benefits. And if they > approach zero, then it's time to stop in a decent way (and archive the > list for good). There is no use to do useless stuff. There is enough of > that on the world. > > For me, the benefits have decreased, but are they close enough to zero? > What could be done to increase them? What would constitute a benefit, > and to whom? > > Felix > > > On 02.09.19 22:28, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > If the cost of running the list was exactly zero (let's not delve into > > details at this point), would you still kill it? > > > > If yes, then we have an interesting case of potlatch, without bonfire. > > > > > > > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > > -- > | |||||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com | > | Open PGP | http://felix.openflows.com/pgp.txt | > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: -- Bronaċ
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
