mark@drd.UUCP (Mark Lawrence) (03/16/89)
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) wrote: } [...] } If the Consortium staff, who have graciously consented to allow their } mailing list to be gatewayed for the convenience of folks like us who } prefer the news mechanisms, say that they don't want to split it up, } then there's really not much discussion involved, and certainly not a } vote! [...] The Consortium staff, I would imagine, hasn't unlimited time (and energy) to keep up with the volume and might appreciate an organized approach to the torrent of X related information coursing through the list at present. So, a question to the Consortium folks who do this work and care about this particular issue: Would splitting up the list to mirror some of the proposed newsgroup categories be such an administrative chore as to be prohibitive as contrasted to the benefits of breaking it up? I'm in agreement with Bob that the list maintainers have much of the say as to what will eventually be done.
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (03/17/89)
Would splitting up the list to mirror some of the proposed newsgroup categories be such an administrative chore as to be prohibitive as contrasted to the benefits of breaking it up? In a word, and as I indicated in a previous message, "Yes". The staff who are generally responsible for responding to xpert questions pretty much have to read everything anyway, and those who don't have gotten pretty good at scanning and clicking Delete on xmh. We see very little personal benefit from a split, and a significantly increased headache in maintaining the lists.
tom@ICASE.EDU (Tom Crockett) (03/18/89)
As one of the readers of the "xpert" mailing list (rather than comp.windows.x), I would like to echo Bob Scheifler's sentiments regarding multiple mailing lists/newsgroups. I personally would find it easier to deal with a single group than several. It is not at all clear to me what an appropriate division would be. Unless I subscribed to everything, it seems like there's a good chance of missing something useful at least occasionally. Tom Crockett ICASE Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering