Re: What about many many mailing lists?

On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 08:17:20PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 02:17:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > mjd-list-bootstrap <[email protected]> writes:
> > > I'm still expecting people to object to the idea of many many lists.
> > > What happened to the people who were saynig yesterday that there should
> > > only be a few lists?
> > 
> > My main objection would be mostly dealt with if the chairs of these
> > "mini-groups" committed to summarizing the discussion and the results of
> > the discussion on the separate mailing lists (or delegating this task to
> > someone else) and posting those summaries to some main list.
> 
> I was thinking about this today as well, but about the bootstrap list
> in particular.
> 
> My presumption is that a wg chair has an agenda, and has a background
> for the wg area.  If the chair were to provide summaries in *all* cases,
> it would lead to these problems:
>   1) is keeping minutes an undue burdon on the wg chair?
>   2) does the chair keeping minutes remove a check or balance on the process?
> 
> If someone *else* on a workgroup were charged with maintaining the weekly
> summaries, it would be one less thing a chair needed to deal with, and 
> one more way to involve a larger portion of the community.  It would also
> provide checks and balances on wg chairs.
> 
> It's an idea.  Not sure if I'm for or against it.  

    I'm for.  If a working group can't produce a secretary to publish a
weekly summary, I'd say that's evidence that there isn't sufficient
commitment to the WG.

    Peace,
* Kurt Starsinic ([email protected]) ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
|     `There is more ado to interpret interpretations than to interpret     |
|      the things, and more books upon books than upon all other subjects;  |
|      we do nothing but comment upon one another.' - Michael de Montaigne  |