[Theforum] Lists Closed to Subscription

[Marlene Bruce]

Dean said:

>  > Subscription to the admin list was closed and by invitation only.

IMO, that was from old legacy stuff that we've been trying to do away with.

>  > The
>  > admin list has changed into the content list.  This made me wonder if
>>  the content list should be closed to subscriptions which led me to
>  > wonder if all of the lists should be closed.
>[...]

Adrian said:

>good points...
>
>closed...

Oh! Oh! We on the content list are just getting ready to publish the
monthly community news, and among other newsy items, in it we were
going to describe what's happening behind the scenes these days.
Apparently some people on non-evolt lists (or at least one person,
who musta gotten it from somewhere) think that evolt.org is going
away, for good, and was asking where the new place to go was.

To stem this impression we planned to describe, in brief, that we've
organized into groups to plan and run the future of evolt.org, and
would welcome more participation. If we close the lists to
subscribers then we can't accept any more help.

I can't speak to the other lists, but I know finance could use more
help (as I've said). I though the idea was to keep the running of
evolt.org open to anyone who wants to participate.

I like what Lach said:

>I believe that if possible, the lists should be closed to people being able
>to post, but people should be able to sign up to get the traffic from that
>list. Then when they've decided that they want to join, they can apply to
>join the group, at which point the group takes a vote on it. If we do go
>ahead with this, we'll need it documented somewhere.

At the very least, could we leave TheForum open? Give people at least
*some* kind of chance to participate. (I just am not sure how a new
person would ever be able to prove they were worthy to be included in
any of the committees...)

>  > From what I understood
>>  of the groups is that they would only accept a limited number of
>>  members.  If the lists are open to anyone, I don't see how this is
>  > enforced.

You're right, keeping groups to a minimum of members has been
suggested in the wiki. But I know at least one or two of the lists
already have lots more members than the wiki proposed. Content, for
example, as of this moment has 23 members. Can we discuss this more
before making a final decision?

Thanks,
Marlene