As an advocate for the creation of the dev list, I had no idea that it would turn into a "Reading Circle" list. But rather it turn up there than on the general tri-lug list of which the posts are way too numerous to really keep up.
I like the idea of multiple lists as I can simply dump each list into a folder and quickly peruse each in a more resonable manner than I could if all lists were combined. I like the diversity on all lists, but I do like it being digestible without wasting too much time. If the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list spends most of it's time organizing a book reading get together, I think, good for those involved, it is easy to get myself involved or ignore those postings. If on the other hand, I cannot distinguish the threads of interest with ease, due to an over abundance of diverse postings, I will more than likely just delete the lot so as not to waste time. Then again, I like organization for my incoming mail. Those who don't, are more than likely going to take a different view. In which case I wonder ... ... should we have a reading circle list? On Tuesday 19 February 2002 04:22 pm, you wrote: > On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 15:46, Mike Johnson wrote: > > dev@ was created because people wanted it, but there's no > > sub-committee. It was thought that having the list would -increse- > > the discussion of the topic, allowing people to feel more free to > > post new questions/topics that only a few people would be interested > > in (and given that most people follow the 'don't post to the list > > unless there's likely to be interest' rule of mailing lists). The > > dev list has worked wonderfully that way. > > Note that dev has worked so well that a lot of the people on it > are putting together a book discussion group. First book: Design > Patterns. > > I have to wonder, though, if the success of the dev group is > more because dev is a wide topic that can encompass lots of > things while the hosting list is a more focused list (which > doesn't yet actually have anything to work on, so it's > all planning right now anyway). > > Tanner
