[Coco] A return to bit.listserv.coco?

[Boisy G. Pitre]

On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:03 PM, James Dessart wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Boisy G. Pitre wrote:
>
>> But why create gateways and openings when we could just congregate in
>> one place?  If one thing fractures the CoCo community, it's "this
>> group" and "that mailing list."
>
> We are currently congregated in one place. Are there people who are on 
> the
> newsgroup and not on here? Why aren't they here?

No, we are not.  There are still CoCo posts ongoing on 
bit.listserv.coco.

Remember James, this group came about as a result of a problem: SPAM.  
Without that impetus, I doubt this group would have been created.  So 
the "fracturing" took place already.  Those people on bit.listserv.coco 
never left in the first place.  Who are we to say they belong "here" 
and not "there?"

>
>> As I suspected, I'm swimming against the tide here.  What surprises me
>> is that no one has seen the validity in the ideas I've expressed, 
>> which
>> I think are quite sensible.
>
> I fail to see it as such. It would be sensible if we could expect the
> newsgroup to always be pristine. It may be quiet now, but increased
> membership is likely to also increase the garbage. You haven't
> demonstrated how it would be more convenient either, and it's not any 
> more
> convenient. We'd still need to get the word out in any case, because
> relying on people bumping across the list or group on google is equally
> ridiculous for whatever medium we use to discuss.

If we are talking about "garbage" here, I could certainly point out the 
vast amount of "off topic" posts that this list endures from time to 
time.  Come on.  It's a weak argument that you're making here.  
Consolidation and unification is my primary objective.  Again, assuming 
that the list is SPAM-free, I think it would make the best sense to use 
that resource for the reasons I mentioned in my last message.

> When looking at something like this, you can't choose to ignore all the
> data. Looking at one aspect, convenience, leaves out all the 
> interactions
> with other aspects, like anonymity, that will affect the convenience 
> when
> the environment changes. I'm sure there's lots of room for research 
> into
> online community dynamics, and I'm certain you'd get a picture of a
> complex system.

I am not ignoring the data; I am merely giving it its appropriate 
weight in light of the priorities which we should all be aiming 
towards: accessibility and convenience.  And I think the heritage of 
the bit.listserv.coco list also carries some weight.  Problems have 
been fixed, issues have been resolved.  It's a viable place for 
discussion that has a wider audience.  Why would you be opposed to 
that?
--
Boisy G. Pitre
E-Mail: boisy at boisypitre.com
Mobile: (337) 781-3997
Web: www.boisypitre.com