Subject: Re: Alternatives

From: "Peter R. Burton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 10:30:38 -0500

Will Jimmy Adair's suggestion of dividing the list achieve the desired results? 
Only partly, I suspect.

Others have already given examples of unwanted consequences.  It also seems to 
me that the criteria he suggests would not bring about a nearly noiseless closed
list. (What guarantee does any grouping of mere mortals provide against making 
serious errors - in style or content?)

Should there be an improved criterion for division?

Why not instead try something much more difficult?  Supposedly already tried but
found wanting (consider the TC list rules).  What I recommend depends on the 
good will of the members.  There does seem to be enough to go around.

1) Leave the list open.

2) Expect all contributors to be genuinely self-restrained, thoughtful, and 
usually concise as they send well argued notes consistent with their knowledge 
to the other list members.  

- I do mean <well argued> for that is the feature I miss in a number of posts, 
which, when quite long, are a waste of time for everyone.  

- With respect to conciseness, do respondents who, repeatedly, repeat replies 
already replete with repetition really regard their replies as being in the best
interests of the readers?

3) Recommend to each contributor that the subject line of each note begin with 
some approved abbreviation to indicate the type of note.  Such an arrangement 
can help identify notes for reading or removal on a given day.

- Consider, for example, the Linguist list abbreviations such as Qs for 
question, Sum for a summary of responses received off list to an enquiry, Calls 
for a conference announcement, Jobs for an employment notice, Disc for 
discussions.  There are others for book reviews and more.  

4) Add to the table of contents in the TC list digest the name of the 
contributor after the subject.  Unfortunately, this means extra programming for 
Jimmy Adair but only initially.  It would enable digest members to be sure to 
read the notes by certain people, and decide according to the topic or stage of 
the discussion whether to read the others (programs cannot do that).

If this recommedation to improve the character of the list is in the too hard 
basket, try the division as proposed.  It might at least help some.

Peter Burton
[email-masked]