[Theforum] Lists Closed to Subscription

Marlene Bruce marlene at members.evolt.org
Wed Jun 5 15:13:42 CDT 2002

Hi Dean,

>That's fine with me.  I understand the other points you raised.  I
>suggest that we amend the Wiki page to reflect that though.  The
>description, purpose, and focus of the groups are incorrect.


Regarding size:

I think it's up to each group to decide how large they should be, and
that number should be amendable over time as their needs change.

For example, SysAdmin might want more members across different time
zones to make sure servers are kept up day and night. Similarly,
content would probably need more people with a wide variety of
expertise to review articles. Etc.

Some groups may eventually want sub-groups to handle certain tasks,
but those would evolve as needed.

Perhaps each group can come up with a number for their size limit?

Current numbers (please fill in the blanks, someone):

Content - 23 (0 digested included)
Development (thesite) - ? (? digested included)
Finance - 5 (1 digested included)
Marketing - ? (? digested included)
SysAdmin - ? (? digested included)

>I believe that the groups were designed to focus people
>on their chosen area so that stuff would get done.  It seems to me
>that the bigger the group, the greater the apathy or the greater lack
>of consensus.

You're right there. In this case, smaller is better. ;o)

>  > At the very least, could we leave TheForum open?
>Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I was only talking about
>closing subscriptions to the five lists that align with the groups.

Ah, okay.

>I would suggest anyone that steps up and becomes actively involved in
>theforum would automatically be qualified to enter one of the groups.

Okay, sounds good to me. So I guess then we should close the group
lists and let people join TheForum first if they want to participate.
I'll modify the text in that community news article...

>Yes, and I know some people are on more lists than the Wiki would
>allow.  I think that the maximum was 3.  Everyone agreed in principle
>at the time but it hasn't been enforced.

There's a big hurdle in the way of enforcement. Except for TheSite,
the subscribers list is only available to the list members. On
TheSite you can't see it even if you are a member.

I hate to feel we have to "enforce" this kind of thing, but I see the
reason for it. It keeps people from spreading themselves too thin.
But maybe the groups themselves will deal with that ... thoughts

>Like I mentioned before, I don't care either way and I can see good
>and bad points for either solution.

I agree, plusses and minuses on both sides.

>However, once the decision is
>made, it should be documented and adhered to (at least for a little
>while until the next challenge to the policy appears).


To the Content, Development and Finance pages I've added (space for)
information on:

* Purpose
   [statement here]

* Listserv
   [list access address here]

* Links to related pages
   [Add links to pages here]

* Size limit
   [Fill in number here]

* Participants
   [participants list here]

Perhaps this kind of info should be on all the wiki group main pages.
(I'd change the others, but I don't feel it's my place since I'm not
a member.)


More information about the theforum mailing list